NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS &

TECHNOLOGY

Research Information Center

Gaithersburg, MD 20890

PUBLICATIONS

NBSIR 87-3687

Standards for Building Materials,

Equipment and Systems Used in

Detention and Correctional Facilities

Robert D. Dikkers

Belinda C. Reeder

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Building Environment Division

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

November 1987

Prepared for: -QC

100

. U56

87-3687

1987

ment of Justice

ititute of Corrections

i, DC 20534

C . 2

Research Information Center

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899 NBSIR 87-3687

STANDARDS FOR BUILDING MATERIALS,

EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS USED IN u - DETENTION AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Robert D. Dikkers

Belinda C. Reeder

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Building Environment Division

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

November 1987

Prepared for: U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

Washington, DC 20534

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, C. William Verity, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Preface . vi

Acknowledgements vii

Executive Summary ix

I . INTRODUCTION 1

A. Background , 1

B. Objectives and Scope of NBS Study 3

II. FACILITY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 6

A. Facility Development Process 6

1 . Needs Assessment ........................................ 6

2 . Master Plan 6

3 . Mission Statement . 6

4. Architectural Program 7

5. Schematic Design and Design Development 7

6 . Construction 9

B. Security Levels 10

C . ACA S tandards 13

III . MATERIALS , EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS .... 14

A. Introduction 14

B. Performance Problems 15

C. Available Standards/Guide Specifications 20

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

Page

D« Perimeter Systems 21

1 . General 21

2 . Fences/Gates 22

3. Intrusion Detection Systems 23

4. Closed Circuit Television 28

5

. Exterior Lighting 28

E. Building Systems 30

1 . General 30

2. Walls ... 30

3 . Floors/Roofs 31

4. Doors 32

5 . Windows 33

6 . Glazing 34

7 . Access Controls 36

8 . Interior Lighting '...... 39

9 . Fire Safety 40

F. Central Control 45

G. Economic Evaluations 46

IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 48

A. General 48
TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

Page

B. Conclusions 51

1. Performance Criteria for Correctional Facilities 51

2. Standards for Materials, Equipment and Systems 53

/ 3. Data Base for the Performance of Materials, Equipment,

and Systems 57

4. Economic Guide or Handbook 57

V. RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE ACTIVITIES 58

VI . REFERENCES . 60

APPENDIX A -- - An Overview of Standards Terminology and the

Standards Development Process 67

APPENDIX B -- Brief Descriptions of Selected Standards for

Materials, Equipment, and Systems 73

v
PREFACE

This study was sponsored by the National Institute of

Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view

or opinions stated in this report do not necessarily

represent the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.

vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful for the contributions and support of numerous

individuals who assisted in the conduct of this study and the preparation of

this report. We especially appreciate the advice of James E. Murphy,

Criminal Justice Consultant, College Park, MD , who helped to plan and gather

information for this study, and also commented on several report drafts;

Bernard Levin, NBS Center for Fire Research, who prepared the report

sections on fire safety; and Peter S. Unger, CASSI, Gaithersburg, MD, who

prepared most of the standards descriptions contained in Appendix B.

The helpful comments and suggestions of the following individuals who

represented organizations interested in this study and who agreed to serve

on a Review Committee to help develop recommendations and priorities for

future activities are also greatly appreciated:

Sheriff James W. Black National Sheriffs'

Larimer County Sheriff's Office Association

Ft. Collins, CO

Harold A. Farrier, Director

Department of Corrections

Des Moines, IA

Norma Phillips Lammers

Executive Officer

State Board of Corrections

Sacramento , CA

James E. Murphy

Criminal Justice Services

College Park, MD

William E. Prindle, II

Prindle Associates, Inc.

Clearwater, FL

Association of

State Corrections

Administrators

American Jail

Association

ACA Adult Detention

Committee

AIA Committee on

Architecture in

Justice

Francis J. Sheridan, Director ACA Design and

Facilities Planning and Development Technology

NY Dept, of Correctional Services Committee

Albany , NY

We also gratefully acknowledge many helpful comments and information

received from various state and local correctional officials, architects,

contractors, testing laboratories, and manufacturers during the conduct of

this study. Special thanks also to Peter Smeallie, Building Research Board,

National Research Council, for assisting in the collection of information.

Finally, we greatly appreciate the financial sponsorship received from the

National Institute of Corrections (NIC) , and the advice and encouragement

obtained from NIC staff (Raymond C. Brown, Director; William K. Wilkey;

Aaron A. Brown; Dennis R. Liebert; and Paul Macias).

vii
... Vlll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

To help alleviate jail and prison overcrowding, over $1.5 billion per year

was spent in both 1985 and 1986 to construct new detention and correctional

facilities. Because of the rapid increase in such construction and the lack

of data and information on building materials, equipment and systems to be

used in jails and prisons, many correctional agencies have experienced

equipment and system performance problems in their facilities which, in some

instances, have resulted in expensive lessons. In response to an expressed

need from California and ofher states for assistance in addressing these

problems, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), U.S. Department of

Justice, initiated a study at the Center for Building Technology, National

Bureau of. Standards (NBS) in September 1986. The general objective of this

study is to develop guidelines, test methods and the technical bases for

standards which would assist in the selection, application, and maintenance

of building materials, equipment and systems for use in detention and

correctional facilities.

During the first year of this study, the primary focus has been on

determining the state-of-the-art in the design and construction of detention

and correctional facilities. Specific emphasis was placed on identifying

performance problems associated with various materials, equipment and

systems, as well as reviewing available guidelines, standards, etc. which

are of can be used by architects and correctional officials in the planning

and design of new correctional facilities. During the conduct of this study

and the preparation of this report, valuable information, comments, and

recommendations were received from many individuals involved in the

planning, design and operation of jails and prisons (see Acknowledgements).

Materials. Equipment and Systems

Performance Problems . The selection of materials, equipment and systems for

jails and prisons is a formidable and complex challenge for architects and

correctional officials. The equipment and systems selected should match the

facility's desired security, safety and supervision level (s); withstand

inmate abuse; be reliable and easy to maintain, repair, and operate; and be

cost effective over the useful life of the facility. If reliable

performance data and information is unavailable during the selection

process, the possibility of costly future repairs, modifications and

maintenance is significantly increased. To perform as anticipated,

equipment and systems must also be installed properly, and facility staff

must be adequately trained to operate and maintain them.

Based on information collected in this study, as well as in prior studies,

performance problems have occurred in a wide variety of materials, equipment

and systems. Among equipment, systems, etc. frequently cited in regard to

problems were: electronically controlled locking devices, electronic

perimeter intrusion detection systems, security glazing, communication

systems, doors and locks, fire protection systems, and lighting systems.

ix
Available Standards/Specifications . The identification and review of

existing standards (test methods, specifications, recommended practices,

etc.) carried out for this study focused primarily on the availability of

standards for: (1) physical security and safety, and (2) the various types

of materials, equipment, and systems mentioned previously. A brief

description of standards reviewed is contained in Appendix B of this report.

Available construction specifications and state guidelines and standards for

jails and prisons were also reviewed.

Perimeter and Building Systems . Descriptive information, performance data,

and relevant standards and criteria details are presented herein for a majority of the important materials, components and equipment which comprise

the perimeter and/ building systems of a detention or correctional facility.

In regard to perimeter systems -- fences/gates, intrusion detection systems,

closed circuit television, and exterior lighting -- are discussed. For

building systems -- walls, floors/roofs, doors, windows, glazing, access

controls (locks, etc.), interior lighting, fire safety, and control center

(communication systems, etc.) -- are reviewed.

Cone lus ions /Recommendations

In general, there are only a few standards (test methods, specifications,

practices) available which directly relate to special materials, equipment

and systems used in detention and correctional facilities. Accordingly,

when the architect and correctional official specify and select equipment

and systems for a new facility, they have to rely, in most instances, on

data from non-standard test methods, performance information based on prior

use, recommendations from manufacturers and consultants, and their own

judgement. In addition, the lack of standards makes if difficult, if not

impossible, to match performance levels of the various components which

comprise a particular system. Similarly, where equipment, etc. is specified

for different security levels (i.e., maximum, medium, minimum), the general

approach is to use prescriptive standards instead of performance standards

because of the lack of performance test methods. (The various types of

standards are discussed in Appendix A.)

Based on data and information presented in this study, there are many

important criteria and standards which need to be developed for improving

the state-of-the-art of selecting materials, equipment and systems for use

in detention and correctional facilities. These criteria and standards

activities, along with priorities as recommended by a review committee, are

listed below.

Criteria and Standards Development Activity Priority

o Test Methods for Locks and Access Control Systems High

o Test Methods for Flaming Ignition of Mattresses High

o Performance Criteria for Correctional Facilities High

o Test Methods for Security Doors and Hardware High

x
Criteria and Standards Development Activity (continued) Priority

o Laboratory Test Methods for Security Glazing High

o Data Base - Performance of Materials, Equipment, & Systems High

o Specifications for Perimeter Intrusion Detection Systems High

o Guide for the Integration of Electronic Security/

Communication/Safety Systems Medium

o Guide for the Physical Security of Correctional Facilities Medium

o Test Methods for Intrusion Detection Sensors & Systems Medium

o Specifications/Guidelines for Fire Detectors & Alarms Medium

o Guide for Developing Fire Emergency Plans Medium

o Specifications for Security Lighting Fixtures Low

o Guide for a Post-Occupancy Evaluation of a Correctional

Facility Low

o Economic Guide or Handbook Low

o Laboratory Test Methods for Durability of Lighting

Fixtures Low

o Specifications for Security Fences and Gates Low

o Revisions to the Life Safety Code Low

o Guide for the Maintenance of Equipment and Systems Low

Because this report is the result of an initial study to identify needed

criteria and standards for materials, equipment and systems used in

detention and correctional facilities, comments and suggestions on the data,

information, and recommendations presented would be appreciated. Any

comments and suggestions should be sent to Robert D. Dikkers, Group Leader,

Building Security, National Bureau of Standards, Building 226, Room B320,

Gaithersburg, MD, 20899.

xi
.

'

*

.

vi i

.
Standards for Building Materials, Equipment and Systems

Used in Detention and Correctional Facilities

I . INTRODUCTION

A. Background

The significant growth in the Nation's jail and prison population which has

occurred over the past decade is shown in figure 1 [1,2,3, 4]^. As reported

by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1983, the rate of growth in prisoner

populations has rapidly exceeded available capacity and officials are unable

to build sufficient new facilities to keep pace with the increasing number

of inmates. The problems of overcrowding are compounded by the number of

facilities which are deteriorating due to age. A Bureau of Justice

Statistics census revealed that 35 percent of the Nation's jails and 47

percent of the prisons were built before 1.950 [5].

The -jail and prison overcrowding crisis has produced unprecedented spending

for the construction of new facilities -- over $1.5 billion in 1985 and

1986. As shown in figure 2, construction awards for prisons have almost

tripled between 1980 and 1985 [6]. California, which operates the largest

prison system (about 60,000 inmates) in the U.S., has spent $2 billion over

the past three years and needs $1.4 billion to $2.5 billion more through the

late 1980 's to keep pace with the need for more inmate housing. In 1982 the

Ohio General Assembly authorized $638 million to construct twelve new

institutions (9,083 additional beds) [7]. Recently the Massachusetts

legislature approved a $213 million bill to increase the number of prison

beds by 2,000 [8] .

Because of the rapid increase in new jail and prison construction, and the

lack of information on building materials, equipment and systems to be used

in such facilities, some expensive lessons have been learned by correctional

officials. The impact of some new techniques and technologies has been a mixed success. In 1986 the President of the American Correctional

Association stated: "Our headlong rush to replace poorly designed,

antiquated, and unconstitutional institutions with the new architecture of

the 1970' s, without considering the staffing and budgetary effects, led in

many cases to modern, spacious, and privacy-conscious facilities that were

doomed to constant understaffing, and becoming modern, but unconstitutional,

facilities [ 9 ]

.

1. Numbers in brackets pertain to references listed in Section VI of this

report

.

1
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988

YEAR

Figure 1. Jail and Prison Population (1978 - 1986)

Sources: ENR, F.W. Dodge

Figure 2. Total U.S„ Contract Awards for Prisons

(From Reference 6)

2
The California State Board of Corrections wrote to the National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) in 1985 requesting possible assistance to help develop

performance criteria and standards which would aid California as well as other state and local jurisdictions in evaluating new equipment and systems

(glazing, locks, communication, alarms, etc.) for jail and prison

construction [10]. As a result of expressed interest by the Center of

Building Technology (CBT) at the NBS to assist by conducting research which

would provide the technical bases for needed standards, California also

canvassed seventeen other states to determine their support for a national

standards development program. Nine states (Alaska, Florida, Hawaii,

Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington) responded to the

California canvas letter. All states reported they were investing

substantial sums in prison and jail construction -- amounts ranged from $56

million to $650 million. With regard to the type of failures experienced in

technology and hardware, the following items were mentioned: electronically

controlled locking devices, security glazing, and communication and lighting

systems. All nine states felt that a national standards and testing program

would be very valuable.

B. Objectives and Scope of NBS Study

In September 1986, based on the above background, the National Institute of

Corrections (NIC), U.S. Department of Justice, funded a study to be

conducted at the Center for Building Technology, National Bureau of

Standards. The general objective is to develop guidelines, test methods and

the technical bases for standards to assist in the selection, application,

and maintenance of building materials, equipment and systems used in

detention and correctional facilities

During the first year of this study, the primary focus has been on

determining the state-of-the-art in the design and construction of

correctional facilities. Specific emphases were placed on identifying

performance^ problems associated with various materials, equipment and

systems, as well as reviewing available guidelines, standards, etc. intended

to assist architects and correctional officials in planning and designing

new correctional facilities. As a result of this first year's efforts,

specific recommendations are being made concerning future activities which

. Although it is recognized that jails or detention facilities and

prisons or correctional facilities are significantly different in their

mission and management, this report generally uses "correctional facilities"

when referring to both jails and prisons.

. In this report, "performance" is viewed as the fulfillment, in a functional sense, of the material, equipment or system. Performance is

effected by many factors during the design/construction process. These

factors include design, selection, specification, and application of the

materials, equipment, and systems; installation, and use. Accordingly,

performance problems may result from any one or a combination of these

factors

.

3
should be carried out to aid governmental agencies (local, state and

federal) in reducing design, construction and operational costs for

correctional facilities, and to help improve the security, safety, and

durability of these facilities. Accordingly, the main activities during

this first year have been:

1. Collection and review of performance data and information (typical

problems, test data, etc.) on building materials, equipment, and

systems used in correctional facilities.

2. Collection and review of existing standards (test methods,

specifications, recommended practices, etc.) which are being used

(or which could be used) in the design and construction of

correctional facilities.

Data and information relating to the first activity were obtained by: 1) a review of published literature and other sources available at the NIC

Information Center, Boulder, Colorado, and the National Institute of

Justice (NIJ)/National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Rockville,

Maryland; and 2) discussions and correspondence with architects, engineers,

contractors, manufacturers, testing laboratories, state purchasing

officials, and correctional officials (local, state, and Federal).

Existing standards were identified primarily through the resources of the

NBS National Center for Standards and Certification Information (NCSCI)

.

NCSCI has virtually a complete set of standards, either hard copy or on

microfilm, of all documents of the major national and international

standards writing bodies. Several construction specifications for

correctional facilities, prepared by private architectural and engineering

firms, were also reviewed. Copies of some state Departments of Corrections

design and -construction guidelines and state Jail Standards were also

reviewed.

Section II of this report presents information on the planning, design and

construction of correctional facilities including a brief discussion of

facility security levels. The primary intent of this section is to provide

some background on important planning considerations which may directly

affect the selection of materials, equipment and systems.

Section III reviews available information on the performance of various

materials, equipment, and systems, and describes some current guidelines and

standards for designing, testing and specifying these systems in

correctional facilities.

Based on the information presented in Sections II and III, Section IV

contains discussions and related conclusions concerning future criteria and

standards development activities which need to be carried out to assist

architects, engineers, and correctional officials in the planning, design,

and construction of correctional facilities. Section V presents recommended

priorities for carrying out these future activities.

4
General information on standards (types of standards, organizations

involved, benefits of standardization) is contained in Appendix A. Brief

descriptive information on various standards reviewed in this study is

contained in Appendix B.

5
II. FACILITY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

A. Facility Development Process

The various phases of the jail and prison planning, design, and construction

process are well documented in guides such as NIC's Planning of New

Institutions [11]; American Correctional Association's Design Guide for

Secure Adult Correctional Facilities [12]; state produced guides such as

Nebraska Jail Standard Board's Jail Planning and Construction Guide [13] and

the More for Le$$ - Jail Construction Cost Management Handbook [14] from the

State of California Board of Corrections; and other texts such as

Correctional Facility Planning and Design [15]. The facility development

process will vary according to the size and nature of the project, but the

organizational principles will generally remain the same. The process

begins when a jurisdiction recognizes the need for additional detention or

correctional space, and ends when this need has been met with new, expanded

or remodeled facilities. A brief description of important phases in this

process is given in the following sections.

1 . Needs Assessment

At the outset of an effort to construct a facility, an assessment is made to

fully understand the breadth and the specifics of a project. Typically, a committee that includes policy makers for the facility, liaisons from the

county or state criminal justice and planning divisions, public sector

representatives, and architectural and engineering consultants is formed to

perform this study. The study typically includes a definition of both

immediate and long term needs; an analysis of existing facilities; inmate

population projections; an examination of how the needs tie in with the

existing criminal justice system policies and procedures, and a

consideration of anticipated system changes.

2. Master Plan

Alternative methods of meeting the needs identified in the needs assessment

study are incorporated into a master plan. Among alternatives considered

and documented in the master plan are site selection, expansion or

remodeling of existing facilities, costs, and current and future dollar

resources. Visits to other recently constructed facilities are often

conducted during this phase in order to explore alternatives ways of meeting

needs

.

3. Mission Statement

Based on previous planning decisions, a project or "mission'' statement is

developed to address the purpose of the institution (who will use and

operate the facility, what type(s) of offenders are to be incarcerated), the

responsibilities of the jail or prison (security, safety, programs, and

services) and the philosophical direction which will govern the operation of

the facility. The statement should cover all of the owner's needs and

objectives, and provide a base for decisions to be made during the remaining

phases of the project.

6
4. Architectural Program

Policy and operating procedures for the facility are the primary driving

forces in setting priorities and giving definition to the architectural

program. The program should define the way the facility will function;

describe all the spaces and the activities to take place in those spaces;

and the relationships between particular spaces. In brief, this programming

phase translates the mission statement into information the architect needs

to proceed with the design phases.

5. Schematic Design and Design Development

In the schematic design phase, spaces are articulated into an overall scheme

and defined in terms of size, shape, and relationships. Site plans, floor

plans, elevations, and major building sections are developed. During this

phase, the owner/user receives the first indication of how the facility will

perform in regard to functional and organizational expectations [14]. The

owner will also obtain a conceptual indication of the building/facility form

and overall appearance.

Staffing is the most expensive aspect of life-cycle costs -- over 60% (Fig.

3). Good design and equipment choices leading to a communicative, visible

environment can ease these costs. Space relationships should be organized

carefully in response to staff/inmate functions and use patterns.

Efficiently separated and/or well circulating space must be articulated

among entering/exiting, sleeping, feeding, .exercise, counseling, heating,

ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) , storage, program, and service

spaces. With the security focus, circulation patterns become more complex

and spatial relationships must be scrutinized for potential difficulties and

opportunities. The large number of daily admissions and releases in some

jails also pose special design considerations.

63 %

Staff Utilities, Construction Prisoner

Salaries Maintenance Costs Care

& Other Costs

Figure 3. Thirty-Year Life Cycle Costs of

a Constitutional Jail (from Reference 16)

7
Security, of course, is a primary design consideration. A well designed

facility can often respond to security concerns through a careful

consideration of functional relationships. The concept of cell clusters

around a common space may allow for a reduction in staff for supervision

purposes and facilitate more staff/inmate interactions. Some authorities

believe physical barriers should be kept to the absolute minimum and

physical and visual interaction between a professional staff and inmates

encouraged [17]. Likewise, other spatial concepts which could increase

security could be considered for possible development in space planning.

Locating maximum security spaces within a building's center with lesser

security areas organized in relation to the approach toward the building's

exterior envelope can assist in providing a secure condition through spatial

control of the facility's operations and inmate circulation.

Other facility design considerations include: flexibility and expandability;

construction and operating costs; energy considerations, accessibility; and

applicable standards. During the design development phase, more detailed

drawings are produced and the final image/appearance and characteristics of

the facility emerge.

Selection of Materials. Equipment, and Systems . Most of the decisions

regarding major materials, equipment, and systems to be used in the facility

should be made during the schematic and design development phases. Since

the function and the operating costs of the facility are directly affected

by the equipment, etc. selected, these decisions are very important.

The maximum security (a term used frequently to denote the highest level of

security) population is the most expensive and difficult to house, but

accounts for only 5-15% of a correctional systems population. About one

third of the population is in the minimum security category which requires

little in the way of special design and construction considerations and

hence is less costly to build. Because "maximum" security hardware and

equipment is usually more expensive than the "medium" security type,

choosing the correct number of each type for a facility is important.

The current and future use of the facility must be examined to accurately

and efficiently design and specify space and equipment. How a facility is

used over its lifetime varies dependent on its type. For instance, State

and Federal institutions tend to retain their security classifications

(i.e., maximum, medium, minimum) throughout their useful life. (In some

instances, this life has exceeded 100 years.

^ When a medium security

institution becomes overcrowded, a new medium security institution is built

to relieve the overcrowding conditions. County jails may begin their

operation with various security classifications in an uncrowded condition.

V In 1984, 11.8% of State prison inmates were housed in facilities

over 100 years old, and 22.7% were housed in facilities that were 50 to 99

years old. (Data from "Population Density in State Prisons," U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report NCJ10324, December 1986.)

8
Over time, as the jail becomes overcrowded, minimum risk offenders tend to

become eligible for pre-trial release and non-jail dispositions while higher

risk inmates may be placed in reduced custody housing. Architects and

owners should plan for this eventuality and be prepared to either upgrade

reduced custody housing for higher security risk inmates or add additional

space for the needed classification.

Utility and maintenance costs are about 20% of facility operating costs over

a 30-year period (see Fig. 3) [16]. Correctional facilities are built with

repetitive, conventional materials and processes as much as possible in

order to keep initial and life cycle costs low. Security, safety,

maintenance, appearance and interfaces with other building systems are

criteria which should guide the selection of many materials and components.

In choosing doors, locks, glazing, lighting fixtures, etc., many trade-offs

between these different criteria must be considered. An inexpensive

security system that needs constant repair is not only expensive but

unreliable. The initial intended use of a security system, a locking device

or a door may be insufficient in terms of total life and future use of the

facility. Decision making based solely on short-term considerations can

lead to the need for expensive renovations or premature replacements.

In addition to carefully organized spatial relationships, dependable

communication systems are necessary for an efficient, safe and secure

facility. Care must be taken to insure that the correct system(s) for the

intended use is specified and installed and maintained by competent

individuals. The "correctness of fit” between a communication or any other

security system and the operating and maintenance personnel may require a simple system. For instance, small county jails may not have the staff

expertise or resources to maintain or operate complex electronic security

systems. In these instances, the architect should explore the system

options with the user to ensure that the final design plan is practical to

implement.

Special concerns relating not only to security but also life safety

requirements must be kept in mind when designing the facility and choosing

equipment. Problem areas include light fixtures, smoke detectors,

sprinklers, finishes, plumbing, and HVAC systems. Noise control, which

lowers stress levels, is another important consideration that relates to

creating a secure, safe and humane environment.

6. Construction

After the completion of final drawings and specifications, the construction

phase of the project is usually bid and managed in one of three primary

ways. A -conventional construction contract, a construction management

method or a phased (fast track) system may be utilized depending upon the

management style and the nature of the committee, the budget, and the time

schedule

.

A conventional construction contract is typically awarded to the general

contractor who is the lowest bidder for the work to be performed. The

general contractor's price is based on estimates from his subcontractors who

9
will perform most of the work. The general contractor is responsible for

completing the project within the agreed upon schedule and price. The

single point responsibility/single contact is an advantage, but this is

usually the slowest approach to construction.

If the corrections facility committee lacks the resources to coordinate the

initial phases of planning, a construction manager or construction

management firm may be hired as the owner's agent to begin and complete

necessary tasks associated with management of the planning and construction

phases. The committee takes on almost a consulting or advisory role, and

bidding only occurs on the subcontractor level after the construction

management firm has been chosen.

An option currently popular for corrections construction, because of

population pressure, is the phased or fast track method. It is a multiple

contract procedure that, when organized successfully, is very fast because

it overlaps activities in the work schedule that would otherwise be done

sequentially. A construction management firm is usually engaged to

coordinate the multiple contracts and receives a fixed fee for their work.

Through numerous discussions (as a part of this study) with security

equipment manufacturers, architects and contractors experienced in the

design and construction of correctional facilities, it was found that

testing of equipment and building components prior to and during

construction of correctional facilities remains a nebulous issue. In

different construction management situations, different representatives are

responsible for the testing and its interpretation. Research indicates that

construction schedules are slowed by testing and reordering for equipment

and systems that fail to meet given requirements. Also, field testing or

the failure to test, may result in costly maintenance and replacement tasks

after construction completion. Obviously, available standards and

performance* tests should be reviewed in the earliest stages of design, and

testing performed before the start of construction or during the earliest

possible stages of construction.

B. Security Levels

Security for a correctional facility (or any other facility) is a composite

system made up of people, physical components and equipment, and policies

and procedures. In order for the desired security to be achieved, there

must be effective interactive relationships between all parts. If one part

should fail or malfunction, the other parts of the security system should

respond or compensate for the failed part. These interrelationship are

particularly important in contemporary correctional facilities, since

designers attempt to achieve "a reasonable balance . . .between the security

features of a secure correctional facility and an architectural environment

that projects a spirit of openness and reconciliation [17]."

The elements of good security systems used in jails and prisons are similar.

Both require well-trained officers in sufficient numbers, well-designed

physical plants, clear-cut rules and procedures, good supervision,

communication, fire and safety systems, etc. Both types of facilities

10
endeavor to implement security classification systems. When inmates arrive

at a prison, they usually have a history of incarceration. However, in a jail, little or nothing is known about new inmates except the cause of

arrest [18]. This challenge has prompted one sheriff to suggest, "If we

could afford it, we would build everything for maximum security."

The definition and number of security and custody levels for jails and

prisons varies among different jurisdictions (local, state, and Federal) and

sometimes within the same system. For prisons, NIC has defined security and

custody levels as follows [19]:

o Security level -- the type of physical (architectural,

environmental) constraints.

o Custody level -- the degree of staff supervision and control

provided.

The five different levels of security described by NIC are: Maximum, Close,

Medium, Minimum, and Community [19]. Often, different areas of a single

institution provide different security levels. The use of measures such as perimeter security, existence and operation of towers, use of external

patrols and detection devices, and housing arrangements, to differentiate

institutions by security levels is shown in Table 1. Custody level relates

to the amount and type of supervision and control provided an inmate during

different activities such as movement within the facility for meals,

recreation, work, other programs, and leaving institution grounds.

As indicated in Table 1, an inmate placed in a maximum security setting

would ordinarily be housed in a single occupancy, inside cell -- a cell

which is contained on all sides within the cellblock or housing unit. (Such

an interior location would suggest overhead and indirect daylighting

concepts, influencing the building form and vertical organization.) If the

inmate escapes from the cell, he/she is still confined to the housing unit.

This is one example of the security zone or perimeter concept. Additional

zones may be used to help reduce the possibility of escape. Because of site

and cost limitations, most facilities will not contain more than four zone

types [20]. By order of increasing size, they are:

o Cell -- Typically walls, windows, doors, and locking system with

electrical indication.

o Housing Unit -- Walls, windows, doors, locking system, electrical

indication, electronic monitoring.

o Building Perimeter -- Walls, windows, doors, locking systems,

electrical indication, electronic

surveillance

.

o Site -- Wall, fence, electronic surveillance, human surveillance.

11
1 • i O 4) 1 © i Os 1 i © 1 i 3 u 1 41 • i O « 1 (J ® i 41 1 • i T5 1 » *—

i S 41 1 u T3 t <0 4-> 1 JG U i © I x © 00 i 0 0 I 9 41 « © a i c 1 X U CN © © U i c 1 M 3 >* * o i 1 ^ £ S

41 -9

*=d ->H ii u £©

x CO

a 00

u i 1 a g u i M 1 •s 0 i « • ««4 ( X us a i I i "O <z t i a e 18 ii 9 © f • i >%

<>wd f © i M I • © i M I • •D ** i C " M i V ( X © y i Oa 1 t y 1 V -» 3 4) i 1 te3 u CM © • o -a i < I co 3 © V °M i n

C ! 9 o T3 >* > © ® i ft, j (5 © © a i . s ^ 1 u CO a so »m i « ( e e i u — * 9 •M ks i © • 3 1 X CO o i 3 1 l 0 -G 1 i M ‘2 © 1 i ^ cC 1 i T3 ^ 4-1 1 u i ©

co 1 • o i 8 * a z 1 i U o 1 w » u • i 9 •

IM 1 X o © i © 4J H 1 .M 41 i X “3 .Wd < © V 9 •H i w > z /*> 1 u <s» u a k4 i •H © o O' ! i-t 3 • • 9 O i 3 "C5 K-S iM i a u © V « V W i M ©

CO 1 w

©

V » m i h 3 C

M© 1 X CO e 06 8 B • « • © «M

Q o 1 a 0 o U i 4i

© •M IM s 1 a 0 0 i © 4-1 a

tee

V 1 X CO

M i 8 M e o H k) 1 i •«* O o U M « 1 i u O.

as CM 1 i V •a *— 9 © 1 i aB ^ © — 9 as 1 © i e " H M 1 V i •e • M M

CO 8 1 >c

B • u i ©

©

B • © i M c * o i u • w 1 w 1 B © M —„ i a e ®

CM I *0

aO “13 • ©

©

O "M

w 1 © 3 e i CM

u 1 M © M o « i 1 > V

W 1 « w© c e • i ©

B

X

X * £ 6 O e -mV « « « i © .w 1 9 OH e 9 M 8 s i X « 1 X •M © S * M « to o 5 i 3 _ M

H | IM • o 1 3 •M e 8 o o i O

C 1 z © s w- O 8 0 o w i •v a .M « _ 1 IM •o © X C z 0 i 3 i u 1 X >M C V W V i u O X I * • B <4” M —d i e Oo 3 v 1 t-H 4> © a cs e © a. a. i 0 _ X 1 u vM fed 0 *-i c**l •rt i x> o 1 9 06 © •m e 00 ^ 4ai i V u 1 V £ Q M © g e=< c**4 i —

V s 1 m* Qte Qc X 3 3 i H 4) u o 1 9 • e O M CO S 0 i j= h 111 iii X u < 111 • ^ © iii •• 1 "O 0 i ea 1 c 5 i w 1 9 Q i H i u i W 1 P" • i X M 1 H 8 « i M X 1 IM 0 ~ i 66 X | Z V « V © o a. i U M i 9 e s e a u •** i A. 9 i X o o o o M i 1 c z z z z V — i &f M 1 O —^ 3 i 2 a 1 9 00 8 i 9 •M I e i 9 CO 1 *«4 U i U z 11 CO o ii CO IM 11 ii ## t i col 1 i z I as z i o 1 fid J o i l-l 1 H 2 M CO o i H 1 M CO § x R U3 z i t-( 1 X as 2 o 9 9 M i z 1 M u w as H im CO i —H 1 2 5 H H H > 9 i Cm M o K < W Cd o I u 1 a- H 0 au Q a s i

12

OUTSIDE

CELL: A

cell

with a

wall

or

window

immediately

adjacent

to

the

outside

of

the

building;

if

an

inmate

escapee

from

the

cell,

he

has

escaped

from

the

building.
Multiple zones mean multiple delays to escape and/or break in attempts, and

multiple opportunities to detect security barrier penetrations, thereby

buying time and increasing security by additional intervention opportunities

by staff.

C. ACA Standards

The standards established by the American Correctional Association (ACA) are

generally accepted as benchmarks for the evaluation of correctional

facilities and their services. The ACA's goals are: to promote more humane

conditions in institutions, to ensure the safety of staff and inmates, and

ultimately provide the programs and services necessary to assist offenders

in returning to society.

In an effort to motivate jurisdictions undertaking new correction

construction to develop more effective institutions and to improve the

quality of old institutions, the ACA has developed an accreditation program

under which many local, state, and federal institutions have sought to be

accredited. Certain standards relating to life, health and safety issues

have been labeled 'mandatory' and must be complied with to receive

accreditation. All ACA corrections standards now fall into two categories -- mandatory and non- mandatory . Currently, accreditation policy requires

compliance with 100% of all applicable mandatory standards and 90% of all

applicable non-mandatory standards.

The ACA has developed standards for the following:

o Adult Local Detention Facilities : o Adult Correctional Institutions : o Juvenile Detention Facilities : o Juvenile Training Schools : o Adult Community Residential Services : o Juvenile Community Residential Facilities : o Administration of Correctional Agencies : o Juvenile Probation and Aftercare Services : o Adult Parole Authorities ; and

o Adult Probation and Parole Field Services .

The ACA is very aware of the need for updating and revising their material

as new ideas and materials need to be addressed and/or as clarification is

necessary and appropriate. The Corrections Standards Supplement [21]

includes a form that encourages proposed revisions to the ACA standards.

Approximately 15% of the 495 standards contained in Standards for Adult

Correctional Institutions [22] pertain to the physical plant, safety and

emergency procedures, and security and control.

13
III. Materials, Equipment and Systems

A. Introduction

Architects and correctional officials face a formidable and complex

challenge in the selection of materials, equipment and systems for jails and

prisons. They must try to select products and systems which will match the

facility's desired security, safety and supervision level (s ) , be reliable

and easy to maintain, repair, and operate; withstand inmate abuse; and be

cost effective over the useful life of the facility. Changes and

improvements in technology (i.e., electronic detection and surveillance

systems, computer equipment, security glazing, locking devices) may offer

considerable opportunities to reduce operating costs; however, the expected

benefits may not be realized if reliable performance data and information is

unavailable during the selection process. Also, anticipated equipment and

system performance will not be realized unless they are installed properly,

and available staff is adequately trained to operate and maintain it.

According to one architect who has designed many correctional facilities,

"It's not possible for any architect, no matter how knowledgeable, to say,

'We know all the technology in the field,' because at that moment, there's

more, newer material coming out. The technology is arriving so fast that it

usually falls to the specialist architect to track it and evaluate it. [23]"

In regard to above mentioned challenges, the following pertinent comments

were made by the screening juries for the annual exhibits (1983 - 1985) of

justice facility projects sponsored by the American Institute of Architects

(AIA) and the ACA:

o 1983 "we note an overuse of high-security fixtures and equipment

where they are not required or desirable -- high- security

fixtures are expensive to install and maintain, and are often

inhuman in scale and material;" and "increased awareness and

application of the life-cycle cost analyses of materials is

needed with respect to maintenance and energy use" [24].

o 1984 - "the jury notices continued examples of overbuilding and of

extremely expensive cell and dayroom hardware when experience

and example show that cheaper options are available and

effective" [25]

.

o 1985 - "the materials selected for interior surfaces, furniture and

hardware are still sometimes inappropriate to the security

level and hamper efforts to achieve normalized environments"

[26].

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has recently launched a new

corrections construction initiative that shares practical ideas on creative

methods to prevent convicted serious criminals from preying on people,

communities, and our economy. A key element of this initiative is the

14
National Directory of Corrections Construction . The first edition of this

directory [27] contains descriptions of designs, construction methods and

costs for 102 jails and prisons built between 1978 and June 1986. It also

contains brief reports on factors which architects indicated strongly

influenced costs and length of time required for completion of the facility.

For over one-third of the facilities described in the directory, architects

reported that complex electronic, mechanical and electrical systems were

negative factors which influenced both costs and time schedules.

As mentioned in Section I. A of this report, various corrections departments

have also experienced problems with the performance of different materials,

equipment, and systems. As a result, they have had to make costly repairs,

modifications, or replacements of the faulty or failed materials or

equipment. The next section will describe some performance problems

identified in this study or previously reported in the literature. Since

the focus of this study is- on the identification of needed standards (test

methods, specifications, etc.) for improving the selection of materials,

equipment, and systems for correctional facilities, major attention is given

to problems or deficiencies, not successful applications. Accordingly, one

should not infer from this report that problems exist in all correctional

institutions or with all types of materials, components or systems.

B. Performance Problems

Innumerable "horror stories" can be found in the literature and heard in

discussions with correctional officials where improper selection or

installation of equipment has resulted in inmates escaping and/or costly

facility repairs and renovations. For example, in one jail, glazing could

be melted when inmates had direct access to the windows and had long periods

of time without staff supervision. The same windows had frames that so weak

they could be pushed out of the wall. In another jail, inmates could cause

beds to come loose from the wall by jumping on the edge of them. The beds

could then be thrown through the windows and the inmates escape. Inmates

were able to escape from another facility by removing an unreinforced

concrete block from an exterior wall by chipping away with a shower head and

steel shanks. A correctional official has also reported that heavy duty

lighting fixtures were installed to prevent inmate vandalism, but the

"ceilings almost weren't strong enough to support them."

Two Department of Justice (DOJ) studies on jail and prison design and

construction, published in 1985, contain more complete information on

performance problems encountered in new facilities [28,29]. In one study

[28], the authors (Dale K. Sechrest and Shelley K. Price) conducted a survey

in cooperation with 15 state departments of corrections. All the facilities

covered in this survey were occupied after 1977, most having been opened in

1981. The testing, selection, operation and maintenance of durable,

efficient and cost-saving hardware and equipment posed a problem for almost

all of the institutions surveyed. Among the problems reported were:

15
o

II No reinforcing bars in critical security areas;

o "Breakage and maintenance problems resulting from use of

traditional building materials such as screws, door hinges, and

window stops inappropriately matched with components;

o

tl Doors too heavy for frames;

o "Awkward placement of control panels, thermostats and lighting

controls; and

o "Lack of conununication/speaker systems."

A major concern for two- thirds of the respondents was with electronic

security systems. In most cases, door control systems had never operated as

expected and required constant maintenance and repair. .Security perimeter

systems were reported as problems in one-half of the institutions. Frequent

false alarms symptomized these problems. The overriding concern was with

the complexity, difficult maintenance and the cost of using electronic

perimeter security systems. Problems with window construction -- glazing,

casing, framing, etc. -- were also reported by over one-half the

respondents

.

A particular difficulty was the identification and selection of hardware and

fixtures (e.g., lighting, temperature regulation and locks) that will

withstand inmate abuse. Dismantling fixtures and furnishings for use as

weapons, or vandalism for no reason were problems- cited. As the authors

[28] point out, "this relates to defining needs for the materials and

hardware to be used in the facilities, the testing of components to

establish specifications and, perhaps the most crucial, achieving a match

between facility needs and capabilities."

In the other DOJ sponsored study [29], KIMME Planning & Architecture

surveyed 255 jails of 50 beds or less ("small jails"), opened since 1974.

The frequency and severity of some of the facility problems reported in this

study are listed on the next page.

16
Facility Seriousness

Problems of Facility

Freauencv (%)* Problems (%)**

o Equipment failures 63 32

o Obtaining replacement

parts for equipment 50 33

o Durability of building

materials & hardware 45 26

o Cell window frames &

glass 30 16

* - % of respondents answering "yes". ** - % of respondents citing very or somewhat serious problems.

Because about one-half of the small jails do not have cell windows, the

author points out that the percentages shown for cell window frames and

glass would be almost double that indicated.

In conjunction with this NBS study, various state correctional officials

were asked whether they had experienced any significant performance problems

or failures with various materials, equipment and systems in jails and

prisons. Selected responses received are contained in the following

paragraphs

:

State A

" Communication system descriptions are vague and do not always specify

its activation capability, or more simply, 'who can initiate

conversation with whom.' The term 'intercom' is frequently used, but

with several different connotations. Along these same lines, it is

difficult to assess the adequacy of sound transmission for the various

communication devices used for visitation areas;

"Fire protection systems present similar problems. We find it

difficult to determine exactly what the selected equipment will do.

Information gleaned from the specifications and drawing legends is

often brief and incomplete;

"Selection of glazing, doors, frames, hinges, locks for use in an area

or cell must be reviewed for their appropriateness for the security

level and type of inmate use/abuse that is anticipated. They must also

be considered as a system in reference to their compatibility with one

another to maintain the desired security level. Levels of security

(minimum, medium, maximum) have numerous meanings and are applied

differently by various manufacturers in the item descriptions.

17
Therefore, it is difficult to determine if materials selected are

appropriate for the areas in question;

"HVAC systems have proven difficult to assess concerning the adequacy

of air exchange and the capability of providing sound separation

between appropriate prisoner classifications, e.g., males and females;

and,

"Finishes are difficult to assess their toxicity in relation to their

intended use, and lighting fixtures in reference to the level of light

that will be provided based upon proposed location."

State B

"We have experienced problems with a variety of products and materials;

however, the most difficult to solve and often potentially the most

dangerous are with electric door locking devices and electronic

surveillance equipment. Because of the complexity of this equipment,

it can require a great deal of time to solve a malfunction and an even

greater period of time to make certain the solution has in fact worked.

At one of our recently opened institutions we have had a series of

failures with our sliding doors. These doors receive heavy use and the

failures have been primarily of a mechanical nature (broken clutches,

loose sprockets, bad welds, missing set screw, etc.), and seem to be a combination of under design and poor craftsmanship at the factory.

Other recurring problems we have experienced are false readings from

door position indicator switches on swinging electric doors, blown

fuses on programmable controllers for electric cell locks and

protracted problems with perimeter fence motion detection systems

(false warnings, dead zones, etc.)."

State C

"I think the number one problem is plumbing. The valves on push button

showers, toilets and laboratories. The chemical build up from the

water clogs up the valves. In a lot of instances it is impossible to

obtain parts. Most local plumbers can't or won't work on this type of

plumbing and a lot of times access to pipes is limited.

"Some of our jails built in the '70's had windows that had to concreted

over or closed in some other manner because of escapes. Of course,

this left little or no natural light to these areas causing the jail to

fail inspection."

18
State D

"In general we have had no significant performance problems with any

systems, materials or equipment used.

"Some materials where a change in use has occurred are:

"Wire glass - used only where required by code - in the past was used

in more areas but it was determined to be a dangerous material (causes

major injury when broken and person tries to retract from it) and the

cause of litigation.

"Barbed Tape Obstacle - original manufactured design failed due to

climatic conditions (collapsed due to wind, snow and ice) . Manufacturer changed design and material to rectify problem.

"Casement windows (standard off the shelf models) discontinued use

because operators were used to make weapons.

"Lay- in-ceilings - discontinued use in inmate areas due to problem with

contraband.

"Other minor issues have come up but nothing major. We have found that

in a correctional system that is very conservative in terms of

security, we have been able to apply currently available technology,

materials, equipment and systems in a creative manner to successfully

satisfy their needs."

Discussions with architects, engineers, and contractors experienced in the

design and construction of correctional facilities and with security

consultants and security equipment manufacturers' representatives has also

confirmed the existence of problems identified by state correctional

officials as well as others.

The architect is often not directly involved with specifying either the

security equipment to be used, or criteria guiding its installation and

maintenance (i.e., security consultants are frequently hired to do such

specialty work). Often too, there is a lack of communication among the

architect, owner and security consultant. Given these conditions, the

opportunity for the architect to properly integrate the security equipment

and systems with the building's intended use patterns, material and

component capabilities, or mechanical and electrical systems is diminished.

Also it was revealed that because initial and life cycle cost estimates in

the facilities' budgets are low, designers are forced to use standard, low

cost materials and equipment that lend themselves to quick and easy

construction. Use of nonconventional materials or products or unusual

spatial configurations, which may improve security conditions but also may

increase cost, are not typically attempted.

Often the program given to the design professional at the onset of the

project does not address the overcrowded conditions that tend to prevail

after the facility is in use. Consequently, materials, equipment, and

19
size/configuration of spaces are designed and specified to a lower density

use pattern than actually occurs.

As mentioned previously, on-site performance testing of security equipment

often leads to delays when failure occurs. Architects and contractors would

like to see standard testing procedures developed and used throughout the

security equipment industry. Such test procedures could also provide an

uniform basis for laboratory testing in addition to field testing.

Architects and contractors noted that the unreliability of electronic

security systems as a major problem. Most felt the problem had to do with

system fabrication and installation. Architects also felt that they often

had insufficient knowledge of -electronic security system operation and

performance to specify the appropriate system and to properly integrate it

with the other building systems. This condition often suggests the

involvement of- a security systems consultant. Electronic security systems

are frequently installed by a security system subcontractor, not an

electrical subcontractor. Because the system, when installed, is usually

not subject to inspections for code compliance, it is difficult to enforce

standards of accepted practice for such installations.

C. Available Standards/Guide Specifications

The identification and review of existing standards (test methods,

specifications, recommended practices, etc.) carried out for this study

focussed primarily- on the availability of standards for: (1) physical

security and safety, and (2) the various types of materials, equipment, and

systems discussed in the previous section on performance problems. During

this standards search, about 300 standards and related documents from over

40 organizations were originally identified. Of these, about one-half were

then selected and reviewed for their applicability and suitability for

correctional facility needs. In the standards search as well as in this

report, no attempt has been made to prepare a complete list or discussion of

all standards which may be applicable to correctional facility design or

construction. Such a list and discussion would be very lengthy since

hundreds of standards for conventional building materials, equipment and

systems exist (see appendices A and B) , and many are generally satisfactory

for testing or specifying such materials, etc. for use in appropriate areas

of a correctional facility (depending on the required level of security,

etc . )

.

In addition to the identification and review of standards, a limited number

of construction specifications for federal and state correctional

facilities, which were prepared by private architectural and engineering

firms, were reviewed. Available state guidelines for the design and

construction of correctional facilities as well as state jail standards were

also examined. Two states (California and New York) have prepared

comprehensive guidelines (i.e., design criteria and guide specifications)

for correctional facilities [30,31]. The several jail standards reviewed

were generally similar in content to the ACA standards mentioned previously;

however, a few did contain specific requirements for certain types of

materials and equipment.

20
D. Perimeter Systems

1. General

Correctional facility designers increasingly rely on a strong, extremely

secure perimeter system around the institution. This is especially true of

institutions located in rural areas. The four major elements of perimeter

security systems -- fences/walls , towers, electronic detection, and

perimeter patrols -- are used with different degrees of frequency in

institutions with different security levels (see Table 2) [32].

As indicated in Table 2, maximum and medium security institutions rely

substantially on all four elements. One of the most common contemporary

perimeter systems for a medium security institution is a double fence and

integral electronic intrusion alarm devices, coupled with coils of barbed or

razor tape, and mobile patrols [12].

TABLE 2

Types of Perimeter and Prison Security Levels

(from Reference 32)

Prison Security Levels

Perimeter types Maximum Medium Minimum Total

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Fence/wall 164 (92..7) 244 (89 .4) 129 (28.5) 537 (59..4)

Towers 142 (80..2) 183 (67 • 0) 12 (2.6) 337 (37,.4)

Detection 68 (38..4) 101 (37 .0) 12 (2.6) 181 (20,.0)

Patrols 154 (87. 0) 232 (85 .0) 265 (58.5) 651 (72..0)

Total institutions 177 (19..6) 273 (30 • 2) 453 (50.2) 903(100..0)

To provide good surveillance, adequate "buffer zones" are suggested both

inside and outside the secure compound. Recommendations [12] suggest that

the minimum distance between the outer perimeter fence and the institution's

property lines be at least 300 feet, but the preferred distance is 600 feet.

Similarly, for good surveillance inside the compound, the desired minimum

distance between buildings and the inner perimeter is 150 feet of

unobstructed space.

With regard to perimeter security, the ACA Standards for Adult Correctional

Institutions [22] contains several standards which require: the

institution's perimeter to be controlled by appropriate means; the

surveillance of all areas adjacent to the perimeter; and limitations on

pedestrian and vehicular entrances and exits in the perimeter (Standards 2-

4177 through 2-4180).

21
2. Fences/Gates

The primary purpose of barriers such as fences and wails is to increase the

time it takes for an inmate (or other person) to escape (or enter) the

facility. The delay systems (barriers) must provide sufficient time after

detection to allow the facility staff to arrive. One of the most common

types of perimeter barriers is chain link fencing with gates of comparable

materials. Available data [33] suggests that the delay time (penetration)

for a single chain link fence is no more than one-half of one minute. The

addition of barbed tape coils or obstacles placed on and near the fence will

about double the delay time.

Contemporary medium security institutions are usually surrounded by two

chain link fences, a minimum of 12 feet high [12]. When topped by a barbed

tape coil (30 inch diameter), the total fence height is about 14 feet. The

two fences should be placed about 20 to 30 feet apart to prevent potential

escapees from jumping from one fence to the other, or from straddling the

fences with ladders or other devices. When changes in directions of the

fence line are required, they should be angled (not curved) to prevent blind

spots along the fence line. To inhibit tunneling or pushing out the fence

at the bottom, a concrete grade beam should be installed at the base of the

inner fence and the bottom horizontal rail should be anchored to the grade

beam.

Correctional facility guidelines and specifications which were reviewed

generally contained requirements for fence fabric, fence posts and rails,

barbed wire and tape which were similar to- the following:

o Fence fabric -No. 9 gage (0.148 inch diameter) steel wire,

2 -inch mesh; finish -- zinc, aluminum, or PVC coating.

o Line Posts - Galvanized steel pipe (or equivalent tubing)

,

minimum outside diameter of 2.875 inches; minimum weight,

3.65 lb per lin. ft.

o Terminal Posts (End. Corner, or Gate) - Galvanized steel pipe

(or equivalent tubing), minimum outside diameter of 4.0

inches; minimum weight, 9.1 lb per lin. ft.

o Rails & Post Braces - Galvanized steel pipe (or equivalent

tubing), minimum outside diameter of 1.66 to 2.375 inches.

o Barbed Wire - Two strand 12-1/2 gage steel wire, 14 gage 4-

point steel barbs spaced 5- in. on center.

o Barbed Tape - 30 in. diameter coil loops of stainless steel

tape with long, needle sharp barbs. Some specifications refer

to U.S. Army drawings; others specify tape size, etc.

Although requirements for fencing were similar as noted above, correctional

facility specifications reviewed differed considerably in referencing

available standards (ASTM, U.S. Military, Chain Link Manufacturers

22
Institute, etc.)- Some specifications also contained detailed provisions

for determining the strength of spot weld attachments for barbed tape.

Twenty four (24) existing standards pertaining to fences, gates, barbed

tape, etc. identified in this study are listed in Appendix B.

3. Intrusion Detection Systems

General . In addition to physical barriers (walls, fences), intrusion

detection systems are another key element in the overall perimeter security

system of a facility. The use of such systems has increased significantly

as correctional administrators and planners seek to reduce costs associated

with building and staffing observation or gun towers, etc. General

information on the selection, cost and experiences with intrusion detection

systems in correctional institutions is available in a number of recent

articles [32,34-38]. One of the best sources of detailed technical

information on intrusion detection systems is a handbook published by Sandia

Laboratories [39]. Much of the following descriptive information on the

various types of intrusion detection systems was taken from this handbook.

Intrusion detection systems (IDS) are comprised of: (1) sensors; (2) alarm

assessment systems; (3) alarm reporting systems (including alarm

communications and information display equipment). The "sensor” consists of

a sensing device in combination with a processor. Performance

characteristics commonly associated with sensors are.: Probability of

Detection (Pd) , False Alarm Rate (FAR) , Nuisance Alarm Rate (NAR) , and

Vulnerability To Defeat. Alarm assessment is the process of determining the

cause of an alarm. Alarms can be assessed visually (directly by staff or by

closed circuit television) , audibly (directly or with various listening

devices) , or electronically (by observing outputs of sensors) . Alarm

reporting systems include a wide variety of equipment used for communicating

alarm information from intrusion detection sensors to correctional facility

staff.

The performance of the sensing and assessment equipment is heavily

influenced by the physical environment in which it operates; this

performance is also influenced by installation and maintenance. The

physical and environmental conditions that can affect exterior detection

systems include: topography, vegetation, wildlife, background noise, climate

and weather, and soil and pavement. Since each correctional facility is

unique with regard to location, mission, procedures, etc., a complete IDS

can not be purchased as an "off-the-shelf" or standard system.

A sensor or sensor system should have a high probability of detection (Pd)

for all expected types of intrusion and have low false and nuisance alarm

rates for all expected environmental conditions. No single exterior sensor

(as reported by Sandia Laboratories in 1983) meets these criteria. The Pd

and FAR of a sensor both tend to increase as the sensor sensitivity is

increased. Estimates of the Pd for various types of intrusions are shown in

Table 3. The relative susceptibility to false alarms, given in Table 4, are

for sensors installed to detect the crawling intruder.

23
Table 3

Estimates of Probability of Detection

(from Reference 39)

Sys tem

Type

in.tmriex

Electric-Field

Microwave Infrared

Fence

Motion

Taut-Wire

Seismic

Seismic/Magnetic

Ported

Coax

Wa Ik ing VH VH VH N/A N/A VH VH VH

Slow Walk VH H VH N/A N/A H H H

Running VH H VH N/A N/A H H VH

Crawling H M-H M-H N/A N/A M M VH

Rolling VH M-H M-H N/A N/A M M VH

Jump ing VH M-H H VH VH

' M M H

Tunneling VL VL VL L VL L L M

Trenching L L-M L L VL M M VH

Bridging L L VL VL VL L L L

Cutting N/A N/A N/A M-H H N/A N/A N/A

Climbing N/A N/A N/A H H N/A N/A N/A

Key: VL - very low

L - low

M - med ium

H - high

VH - very high

N/A - not applicable

24
a

Table 4

Re lative

System

Type

Environment

Susceptibility to Nuisance Alarms

( from Reference 39)

-a

r—

i

O) c

•H O 14) 4-1 4) u > “O o O

*H 03 4) S *H WOU 5 u 5

03 4) ! O

4) W

O

MOW

C 3

“H C 4) W 2 M H

Seismic

Seismic/Magnetic

Ported

Coax

0 Weather

Wind 47 km/hr L VL VL L VL L L VL

Wind 47 km/hr WS 115 km/ hr M L L H VL M M VL

Wind 115 km/ hr M L-M L-M VH L H H VL

Rain L-H L L M VL L L M

Runoff, Standing Water VL H-H L L VL L L H

Snow M L-M M L VL L L L

Fog VL L M VL VL VL VL VL

Animals

Small (Rabbits, Squirrels) M M-H M L VL L L VL

Large (Dogs, Deer) VH VH VH M L VH VH M

Birds

Small L VL L L VL VL VL VL

Large M M M L VL VL VL VL

Electrical Interference

Lightning - 1 mile M L-M L L VL L H • M

Overhead Power Lines VL L VL VL VL L M VL

Buried Power Lines VL VL VL VL VL M H VL

Key: VL - very low

L - low

M - med ium

H - high

VH - very high

25
The New York Department of Correctional Services has set the following

criteria for intrusion detection systems [38]:

o One (1) false alarm per zone per 24-hour day, for both medium and

maximum security prisons

;

o 95% probability of detection for medium security prisons; and

o 100% probability of detection for maximum security prisons.

Tvnes of Sensors . The types of exterior intrusion sensors include:

microwave sensors, electric field sensors, seismic-magnetic sensors, seismic

sensors, magnetic sensors, fence-associated sensors, infrared, and ported

• coaxial sensors.

Microwave sensors can be categorized into three classes (bistatic,

monostatic, and terrain following) depending upon antenna configuration.

Bistatic sensors consist of transmitting and receiving antennas at opposite

ends of a microwave link; they are used for detection in long, flat narrow

perimeter zones. Monostatic sensors use the same antenna, or nearly

coincident antennas, for the transmitter and the receiver; they are

typically used in a relatively confined volume. Terrain following sensors

use other antenna configurations for which the integral antenna pattern is

not line-of-sight ; they are designed for use in long perimeters. Typically,

a microwave perimeter alarm system will operate effectively in the range

between 70 and 150 meters [40]

.

Electric-field fence sensors consist of an alternating-current field

generator which excites a field wire, one or more sensing wires that couple

into the resulting electric field, and an amplifier and signal processor to

amplify and detect changes in the signal amplitude of the sensing wires. A

signal is generated when an object (human body) distorts the coupling

between the field wire and the sensing wires. Another method is to excite a

wire or set of wires and to monitor the change (caused by an intruder) in

the capacitance of the wire(s) to the ground. Electric field sensors used

in perimeter applications can be either freestanding (mounted on their own

posts) or fence mounted (mounted on a chain link fence) . Since this system

is not line-of-sight, it can be installed on uneven terrain and in an

irregular line. The electric-field system provides about 300 meters of

perimeter protection per segment, but shorter lengths are recommended to

have effective alarm assessment and response capabilities.

Seismic-magnetic sensors consist of a buried cable sensitive to both seismic

and magnetic disturbances, and a processor to evaluate signals generated in

the cable. Seismic sensors are passive systems that detect seismic

disturbances such as mechanical pressure, deformation, or vibration

transmitted through the ground to the sensor transducer. Magnetic sensors

are also passive systems and are sensitive to disturbances in the local

magnetic field caused by nearby movement of ferromagnetic material such as

iron and steel.

26
There are four basic types of fence sensors which detect different types of

fence movement. They are: mechanical, electromechanical, strain sensitive

cable, and taut wire. The first three types are normally installed on an

existing fence whereas the taut-wire sensor can be a freestanding fence. The

mechanical fence sensors all operate on the principle that movement of the

fence will cause a switch mechanism to open or close a set of contacts . The

electromechanical fence sensors use a set of point transducers to detect

fence motion. These transducers produce an analog signal instead of a switch closure and use an electronic signal processor to extract alarm

information from the signal. Like mechanical fence sensors, they are

positioned on the fence at regular intervals. The strain sensitive cables

are transducers uniformly sensitive along their entire length. These cables

are designed to produce a signal whenever the cable is moved or strained. A

taut-wire sensor fence primarily consists of a dense screen of horizontal

wires connected to a central detector post assembly and securely anchored at

each end. The horizontal wires are tensioned upon installation, then

attached to a sensor. Mechanical action taken against one or more of the

wires, such as climbing or cutting, will generate an alarm.

Infrared sensors detect changes in the signal power of a line-of-sight

infrared beam created between a transmitter and receiver. Since the

infrared beam does not diverge significantly as does the microwave beam,

multiple infrared beams are often used to define a "wall." The typical

distance between transmitter and receiver is about 100 meters; however, some

systems are capable of monitoring a distance of 300 meters under ideal

conditions

.

Ported coaxial sensors are active electromagnetic sensors consisting of two

or three identical coaxial cables buried in the ground parallel to each

other. A transmitter is connected to one cable and a receiver to the

others. Because the outer conductor of the cables is ported (i.e., contains

closely spaced, small holes or gaps which allow radio frequency energy to

radiate), any electromagnetic energy injected into the transmitter cable is

radiated into the surrounding medium, and some of this energy is coupled

into the receiving cable through its ported shield. When the intruder

enters the established field, the coupling is perturbed and the resultant

change in received signal is processed for an alarm condition.

Test Data/Standards . Extensive testing of intrusion detection systems has

been conducted by Sandia Laboratories and the U.S. military. However,

because of the unavailability of these test data, as well as lack of test

data more appropriate to their needs, various state Departments of

Corrections have conducted limited testing of perimeter IDS. In addition,

there are few, if any, nationally recognized standards for testing,

purchasing, installing or maintaining these systems. The . guide

specifications developed by the State of New York [31] contain sections for

the following types of IDS: microwave, electronic fence alarm, ported

coaxial, infrared, taut wire, and E-field. Each specification section also

contains tests for system acceptance. California [30] has also developed a draft section in their Design Criteria Manual on perimeter electronic

detection systems. The Sandia Laboratories IDS Handbook [39] contains draft

specifications for three types of exterior sensor specif ications -

27
infrared, electric field, and bistatic microwave. Performance and

installation criteria for various IDS are outlined in an U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Guide [40] .

4. Closed Circuit Television

Closed circuit television (CCTV) systems provide one of the primary means of

visually assessing the cause of an intrusion detection system alarm.

Accurate and rapid assessment of a remote system alarm by CCTV (or by

observation tower staff) is essential so that relevant information

(attempted escape in progress or false alarm) can be communicated to

appropriate facility staff (i.e., mobile perimeter patrols, maintenance

staff, etc.). In general, CCTV systems have proven to be a cost-effective

tool in monitoring fence lines, roof tops, perimeter blind spots, vehicle

sallyports, etc. Most correctional administrators are quick to point out,

however, that CCTV supplements staff; it does not replace staff.

A CCTV system is comprised of one or more cameras at the remote end, a display monitor at the local end, and various transmission, switching, and

recording systems connecting cameras to display [39]. Many CCTV systems

employ more cameras than display monitors since there will seldom be

instances where all camera sectors simultaneously require viewing. For this

reason, video switching equipment may be utilized between a large number of

camera signal lines and a (relatively) small number of display monitors.

The associated alarm sensor system should interface with the switching

system so that an alarm in any sector causes the associated camera output to

be automatically displayed on a local monitor. Multiple alarms are

processed in a similar manner but may require additional monitors and/or

priority-sensitive camera switching control equipment [39]. Video tape

recorders can be valuable component of the CCTV system since they provide

the capability to reconstruct alarm events for either immediate playback and

assessment or future analysis.

In addition to serving as a remote alarm assessment system, a CCTV system

can be equipped to detect motion. A microprocessor digitizes the image

signal from a CCTV camera and, at a set interval (1-2 seconds), repeats the

process with a second image from the same camera and performs a comparison

for change [41]. Depending upon the sensitivity and alarm threshold, if a change is detected, an alarm is triggered. Additional information on the

design and selection of CCTV systems may be obtained from the various

references [39, 41-45] listed in Section VI.

5. Exterior Lighting

Effective perimeter security requires a good exterior lighting system. A

traditional method is to place lights at 100-foot intervals along the entire

perimeter, with additional lights placed at building locations both inside

and outside the fence and at other locations around the facility [12]. In

recent years, however, the use of fewer high-mast lighting standards (over

40 feet in height) with high-energy discharge lamps (metal halide and high

pressure sodium) have become popular [12,45].

28
Among the design criteria for exterior lighting systems established by the

California Department of Corrections [30] are the following:

o Lighting standards located in any area accessible to inmates shall not

have footholds, handholds, or any protrusions to facilitate climbing.

o Luminaires mounted below 18 feet in areas accessible to inmates shall

be provided with polycarbonate or other approved shields/lenses to

provide resistance to vandalism.

o Area lighting systems and perimeter (fence) lighting systems shall be

photo-electric controlled with manual override at central control.

These systems shall use high pressure sodium lamps with high efficiency

ballasts, electronically regulated.

o In-service illumination for exterior lighting systems shall provide the

average illumination levels listed. Minimum to maximum rates shall not

exceed five to one.

2) Open Areas Secured Perimeter 2 horizontal plane at ground level

Area

Maintained Illumination

(Footcandles)

1) Inmate Exercise Yard 5 horizontal plane at ground level

3) Vehicle Sallyports 5 vertical for 10 ft. high plane at

front, rear, and both sides of

position occupied by vehicle

4) Perimeter Fence 5 on horizontal plane inside

fence (20 foot wide corridor)

29
E. Building Systems

1 . General

The building systems which comprise the walls, ceilings, and floors of the

cells, housing units, and the building envelope provide another primary

security system for a correctional facility. For many jails, particularly

those situated in crowded urban locations, perimeter security systems are

not feasible, so the building systems comprise the only physical barriers

for preventing escape. However, as indicated in Section II. B, it is still

possible to have several security zones in the buildings containing the

housing units. In each security zone, it is important that the building

components making up that zone -- walls, floors, doors, windows, locks, etc.

-- have equivalent performance levels.

Building systems utilizing pre-fabricated modules and components in jail and

prison construction have increased significantly in recent years to provide

short-term or long-term solutions to inmate overcrowding problems.

Information on the use of steel, wood-framed and concrete modules and

prefabricated components in correctional facility construction may be found

in various articles and publications [46-51].

2. Walls

General . Typically, concrete and masonry walls (interior and exterior) are

being used in contemporary correctional facility construction [27].

Concrete walls may be either cast-in-place or precast [49-51], Masonry

walls are frequently constructed with concrete masonry units (CMU) . Wall

thickness and reinforcement will generally vary according to the loads

supported, security requirements, and local codes. Where such walls serve

as security barriers, they should extend all the way to a secure ceiling and

be appropriately anchored.

Concrete . High strength concrete (4,000 to 5,000 psi minimum compressive

strength) and normal steel reinforcement provided for shrinkage and

temperature control will generally provide the necessary resistance for

security. Non- loadbearing concrete walls may be 4- in. thick and loadbearing

walls can be 6-in. or 8-in. thick [51].

Masonry . Where maximum security is needed, concrete masonry walls are

usually 8- in. thick, reinforced with steel bars 8- in. on centers (both

horizontally and vertically), and solidly grouted [12,30]. Medium or

minimum security walls may be 6-in. thick and the steel reinforcement placed

at intervals greater than 8- in. Proper supervision of masonry construction

is very important to insure that the steel reinforcement and concrete grout

are properly installed.

Test Data/Standards . A special design consideration for the selection of

security walls or barriers in correctional facilities is their resistance to

physical attack and penetration. Assuming the use of hand tools,

penetration times (i.e., time required to produce a human-size hole and one

person to crawl through the hole) for different types of concrete and

30
masonry walls are shown in Table 5. As indicated, concrete walls, 6 inches

or less in thickness can be penetrated with hand tools in relatively short

times. Similarly, hollow concrete block walls (by themselves) are easily

penetrated with hand tools. If the block cores are filled with mortar or

grout and the cells are reinforced, the penetration times are increased

significantly against hand tools.

Although there is a national standard (ASTM E72) for determining the

strength of walls subject to various loads -- compressive, lateral, impact,

and racking, there is none for measuring the penetration resistance of

walls. Test procedures which have been developed for determining the forced

entry resistance of structural materials and assemblies are briefly

described in Appendix B.

TABLE 5

Penetration Tines (Minutes) for Concrete and Masonry Walls

( from Reference 33)

Wall Construction Tools Mean Time'

4-in. concrete (3000 psi)

,

one layer 1/4- in. x 6- x 6 -inch

mesh

Sledge, hand hydraulic

boltcutters

3.2*

6-in. concrete (3000 psi),

one layer No. 5 bars, 6-in.o.c.

Sledge, hand hydraulic

boltcutters

7.6*

8-in. concrete (3000 psi)

,

two layers 1/4- in. x 6- x 6- inch

mesh

Sledge 12.1

(no hole)

12-in. concrete block, cores

unfilled, no rebar

Sledge 1.5

8- in. concrete block with No. 8

rebar in each core, running bond,

mortar filled

Sledge, cutting torch 2.7

12-in. concrete block, cores

filled with mortar, No. 6-in.

rebar on 8 -in. centers

Sledge, prybar, hydraulic

boltcutters

20

* Estimated penetration time based on judgement and test data from similar

type barriers

.

3. Floors/Roofs

Conventional concrete floors and concrete/metal roofs are usually

sufficiently reinforced to provide the necessary security requirements. In

31
general, floors offer more resistance to penetration than roofs do because

they are designed to accommodate heavier loads than roofs. Based on the use

of hand tools, penetration times for different types of floor and roof

construction are shown in Table 6. As is the case of walls, no nationally

recognized test procedures exist for determining the penetration resistance

of floor and roof construction.

TABLE 6

Penetration Times (Minutes) for Floor and Roof Construction

( from Reference 33)

Construction Tools Mean Time

3 -in. concrete topping on

top of 2.5 in. concrete slab

with 6-in. sq. mesh of No. 10 wire

Sledge

,

boltcutters 4.6*

4-1/2 in. concrete with No .

3

rebar on 18- in. centers placed on

16 gauge steel decking

Sledge

,

fire axe 4.7*

Asphalt built-up roof with

gravel, 3-in. vermiculite

concrete, 2- in. rigid insulation,

16 -gauge steel decking

Fire axe , shovel 3.2

Asphalt built-up roof with

gravel, 2- in. rigid insulation,

2-1/2 in. lightweight concrete

with 6x6x10- gauge wire fabric

on 22 -gauge steel decking

Mattock, fire axe, bar 4.0

* Estimated penetration time based on judgement and test data from similar

type barriers.

4. Doors

General . The selection of doors, door frames, hinges, vision panels, and

locks for correctional facilities is an important design consideration.

Some states require all security doors to be hollow metal, steel plate or

steel grillage, and all frames to be hollow metal or steel plate [30,52,53].

Where hollow metal doors are used for cell doors, the door face sheet

thicknesses are commonly 12 or 14 gage steel, and the door frames are of a similar thickness. Steel grillage doors are usually constructed with steel

bars having a minimum dimension of 7/8 inches and spaced 5 or 6 -in. on

centers [30,53]. The advantages of hollow metal doors over a steel grillage

door are discussed in a guide specifications for detention security doors

and frames published by the National Association of Architectural Metal

Manufacturers (NAAMM) [54].

32
In general, sliding doors are used in medium and maximum security cells,

high traffic sallyports, and holding cells. Swinging doors are usually used

in minimum and medium security cells, control rooms, secure closets, low

traffic sallyports, exterior doors, etc. [14].

Standards /Test Data . Numerous standards for doors are briefly described in

Appendix B. Standard test methods for determining the air leakage, water

penetration, fire endurance, bullet resistance, and physical security of

doors are available. In regard to physical security, five tests (static

load, racking load, impact load, glazing stop test, and bullet resistance)

are included in the NAAMM guide specifications for detention doors cited

above [54]. At the present time, an ASTM Subcommittee (A01.16 on Detention

Assemblies) is developing a specification covering swinging detention door

assemblies. This draft specification covers detailed construction

requirements for the door, frame, and hardware, and contains test procedures

for impact load, racking load, bullet resistance, and fire (refers to other

existing fire tests)

.

Penetration times for standard industrial doors (1-3/4 in. thick with 16- or

18 gage steel face sheets) are reported to be only a few minutes when

attacked with hand tools such as crowbar, axe, hammer and punch, etc. [33].

A recent article estimates that the penetration or delay time for doors

meeting the minimum requirements of the NAAMM guide specifications would be

4 to 5 minutes using the best tools, and 70 to 80 minutes using only limited

tools [ 55 ]

.

5

.

Windows

General . Although windows help normalize the general atmosphere of a correctional facility by making it more "open" and humane, they are usually

the weakest link in a barrier system [12,33]. Where "security- type" windows

are required (e.g., housing units, control center), three options are

available -- specially manufactured security windows and frames, security

glazing, and concrete or steel sections placed in the clear opening [12].

Important factors in the design of security windows are: required degree of

security, passing of contraband, accessibility of glass, ventilation and

daylight requirements, and maintenance [56]. Most security windows are

available to meet different security levels -- maximum, medium, and minimum

[57]. Such windows have horizontal/vertical bar spacing and ventilators of

a size to deter escape, and section size and weight to reduce deflection and

damage to the window. Ventilators allow for natural ventilation and for

exhausting smoke. Maximum security windows also have a built-in grille of

tool-resisting bars to resist sawing, filing and drilling.

Careful attention must be given to the anchorage of the window frame in the

wall. In one facility, inmates were able to escape after loosening the

mortar used to anchor the frame and pushing the entire window out of the

masonry opening. Wherever possible, the removable stops used for the

security glazing in cells should be applied to the outside to eliminate

inmate tampering. In high-rise facilities, this may not be desirable

33
because of replacement costs. When stops must be used on the inside, the

should be installed with an ample number of tamper-proof fasteners.

Additional information on window and glazing problems has been reported in a NIC study by Dennis Kimme [58]. Fifty jails were surveyed in this study.

Problems fell into five basic and interrelated categories: (1) glazing

failures; (2) weapon and tool availability; (3) window framing and detailing

deficiencies; (4) differences in the size of glazed openings; and (5)

staffing, operational and activity deficiencies. The most frequently cited

problem in the window framing was the removable stops or the frame members

used to hold the glazing in place. Lightweight framing systems also

resulted in problems. The cell windows with glazed openings greater than 5

inches in the narrowest dimension suffered about 50 percent more damage than

those with openings 5 inches or less. Inadequate surveillance of inmates by

staff had a significant impact on cell window failures (and escapes)

.

Test Data/Standards . Using hand tools, penetration times through

conventional windows with glass or plastic glazing (less than 1/2- in. thick)

are less than one minute [33]. Such times can be enhanced either by the use

of steel bars and grills or by the use of security glazing (see next

section)

.

Specific standards are available for determining the physical security of

windows (Appendix B) . In general, these standards (ASTM F588 and NIJ 0316)

are intended for determining the resistance to forced entry of windows used

in residential and small commercial buildings.

6. Glazing

General. The use of security glazing has greatly increased over the past 10

to 15 years, and a vast array of different products are now available.

Glass products are comparatively low in strength but high in heat and

scratch resistance. Plastic materials such as polycarbonate have good

strength and flexibility, but compared to glass, have low resistance to

heat, scratching, marring, discoloration and a high coefficient of

expansion. A comparative summary of the characteristics of glass and

polycarbonate materials used in security glazing products is shown in Table

7 [59]. Glass, due to differences in production and treatment, will have

large variations in strength as noted in Table 7.

Some problems with security glazing have been previously noted under Section

XII. B and the previous section pertaining to windows. In the Kimme study

[58], many owners were disappointed with glazing performance because their

glazing was considered to be "unbreakable" or "virtually indestructible."

Given the right weapons and an adequate amount of time, all glazing products

can be damaged and penetrated, as can virtually any construction material.

All glazing types -- glass laminates, polycarbonate plastic,

glass/polycarbonate laminates -- sustained damage from inmate attacks.

Glass laminates were vulnerable to freezing (i.e., freezing blast of a fire

34
TABLE 7

Characteristics of Glazing Materials

(from Reference 59)

Product

Comparative

Strength Cost Breakage Pattern

Cut on

Job Distortion

Annealed 1 1 Long sharp splinters,

radial cracks

.

Yes No

Heat Strengthened 2 2.6 Long sharp splinters,

radial cracks

.

No Yes

Semi-Tempered 4 2.5 Splinters, local

pulverizing, cracks.

No Yes

Heat Tempered 4-5 2.8 Small cubes, pebbles,

vision obscured.

No Yes

Chemically

Strengthened

3-4 2

'

4

Long sharp splinters,

and some pulverizing.

Yes No

Polycarbonate 250 3 Shear cracks and some

pulverizing.

Yes No

extinguisher using carbon dioxide) and tool impact. Polycarbonate plastic

was susceptible to surface damage, was very vulnerable to intense heat but

had relatively good resistance against , impact attack. Glass/polycarbonate

laminates were found to provide a level of damage resistance comparable to

glass laminates, and a level of penetration resistance comparable to the

polycarbonate plastics.

Standards /Test Data . Two important considerations for the selection of

security glazing in correctional facilities is their resistance to ballistic

and physical attacks. Because a system's overall protective level is no

better than its weakest component, the level of glazing resistances selected

should be consistent with the resistances of the surrounding walls, doors,

louvers, and other building components. Because of the thickness and

properties of security glazing, sound transmission through such glazing is

much more difficult than through ordinary glass. Where sound transmission

through the glazing is a requirement, a system utilizing individual speakers

and microphones should be specified.

One of widely used test methods for bullet resistance is UL 752 (see

Appendix B) . It recognizes four power rating levels (medium - small arms;

high - small arms; super - small arras; high - rifle). Another standard, NIJ

0108.01, utilizes a wider range of weapons and ammunition than the UL

standard.

35
For attack resistance, a variety of test methods are currently being used

(see Table 8). As a result, there are considerable differences in the ways

security glazing is specified for various correctional facilities. In some

test methods [60,61], the glazing is attacked by men using various assault

tools, including sledge hammers, hammers, steel pipe, chisels, battering

rams, propane torch, etc. In order to better determine the comparative

qualities of different security glazing products, the California Department

of Corrections initiated a large testing program in 1984 [59]. In this

program, three panels of each of forty separate products were submitted for

testing by eleven major manufacturers. As indicated in Table 8, three

laboratory controlled tests were performed on each product. Testing on a product was discontinued when a six- inch round opening was produced or when

thirty minutes elapsed, whichever occurred first. This test method and the

results of this test program are now being used in the California new prison

construction program [30]

.

The results of a NBS research project to develop a laboratory test method

for security glazing have been recently published [62]. In this NIJ

sponsored research, the test method developed evaluated the penetration

resistance of glazing materials subjected to a simultaneous attack with a sharp-nosed tool and heat application (see Table 8) . Currently, ASTM

Committee F12 on Security Systems and Equipment is also working on a test

method for security glazing materials and equipment. The draft test method

under review is based on field experience and incorporates many provisions

for physical and ballistic attacks which are similar to those contained in

other existing test methods.

7. Access Controls

General . Access controls, according to one definition, are the remote

control and monitoring of personnel movement into, out of and throughout a

facility [63]. One of the primary objectives of access control systems is

to permit only authorized persons to enter and exit controlled areas (e.g.,

sallyports, control rooms) [64]. Such systems not only contain components

that control locking and unlocking of doors and gates but also include

audible and visual communication equipment for the surveillance and

protection of specific areas. The design and application of access controls

in correctional facilities requires the consideration of a number of factors

including: (1) the needs or purpose of the facility; (2) the level of

security desired; (3) the level of life safety (fire and personal); (4)

operational convenience and simplicity; (5) flexibility to meet changing

facility needs; and (6) cost [63]. A study of control room operations in

one correctional facility showed that one of the control room officers spent

75 percent of his/her time opening doors for staff. To improve operations

in this facility, access control readers using keys were installed [65].

Locks . Locks and locking devices are important elements in the overall

access control and security system of a facility since they "secure" the

movable portions (doors, gates) of the barriers (walls, fences). As

mentioned previously, components that make up a particular security system

should have equivalent performance levels. Elaborate locks can be used for

36
Table 8

Summary -

Physical

Attack

Teata

for

Security

Glaxini 5v

06

O

U o 41 « O © 3 5*

CX, •• 05

—* — T3 §

C*a S. **

U • e a y • i a. y o u

00 3 u

u ^ C C v ^

•*-

w i 13 o u •** U

£3 • -< ^*-

a 43 *-« r-i *-* JZ y m u -o y 3 y I y u c c

fla^ 0 0 0 ^5 w ^ y < cu a

“O a.

a

>s

y 0 *^ 1- I U T3 « 4) « o <r y O'*- *-» x — a —« T3 0 ®

a. cm a ^ U 00 o <y v H -o

33

—• O S3

V

C«» «J

— JJ 00 U — -g •an®: © 1J 5) w 3 <3 j* 9 3 — o •- U >N W © *J XZ U Z - 4J © —• w • 01 *- -3 0 C « © *0 3 * e ® x •* a. y a o ifu o 9 u V X • a m « a z e

-e °oa ^3 o o • o • © • o C cm C n C CM I u I 1- I u o o o o o o a ^ • *- a a 3 o a 8 X C y • V k) v 4> O K M 0* • 0 • JO J <- O I «n ^ © 41

y *j « ® u y X «

l/*» 4#°1 *- 0: • 0 y a

tn o ^ ^ o 41 >N H -o x w Sa ©

-*

—j y

y 3 x • “O y e u x y o y o. *m

Xy *Jy • «a cm •• * =0 — — oo • «l *=) I cm a • ® u I O 1 0 C u ^ w «a =a •- y

a « X v©

<*>

X

C 00 0© !*.«*«

«-tXX

a

yy o y y e O *=> U Us

—

O *3C I 83 u y - C 3 <s to o « y y a **- *4 u « y ® 3 y ® Z 60 C/3 w

O• \0 ya y

y l a •—y % £ ; o! < —

37

H.

P.

White

36na

48"1

Teat

method

apecifiea a

aquence

of

Not

No.

of

Not

Passage

of8”

Laboratory,

Inc.

various

types

of

attacks

using

Specified

impacts

speci- 8"*5"

shape

TP0100.

00

different

tools A

devices:

sledge

varies

tied

(Reference

61)

hammer, 4"

pipe, C

02

extinguisher,

with

type

120

lb.

ram,

propane

torch 1

of

tool:
a door that can be kicked open, or a fortress - like door can have a lock that

can be easily picked [66]. Where possible, however, a door that provides a 2-minute penetration delay, should be equipped with a lock that also

provides a 2-minute minimum delay.

A variety of lock types -- electrical, electro-mechanical, and mechanical-

are used in correctional facilities. The type to be used will depend on the

level of security and control required for each specific location. Where

maximum security is required, heavy duty electro-mechanical locks are

generally used. Unlocking can occur by retracting the latchbolt with either

a paracentric key or by the use of a remote switch in a control room which

activates a solenoid or motor in the lock. The door deadlocks automatically

when it is closed. Such locks are usually frame mounted and offer

considerable resistance to physical attack. Where full control of a door or

a group of doors is needed, locking devices or mechanisms capable of

locking, unlocking, opening or closing the door(s) from a control room can

also be used.

Where medium security is required, similar but smaller electro-mechanical

locks are usually recommended. Mechanical locking (or unlocking) is by the

use of a mogul key. For minimum security applications, heavy duty mortise

cylindrical locks are commonly used. Since these locks are installed in the

door, the electrical wires to the locks pass through special hollow hinges.

Jamb mounted locks which can be installed in a standard door frame are also

being used in minimum security applications. Where remote control of the

lock and door is not required, a variety of mechanical locks (lever tumbler

deadlocks, spring and deadlocks, and pin tumbler cylindrical locks) are

available. Where necessary, for remote monitoring, these mechanical locks

can also be equipped to indicate the locked or unlocked condition of the

door.

Available standards for various types of locks are briefly described in

Appendix B. Several of these standards include tests for determining the

resistance of locks to expert attack for periods up to 10 minutes. As noted

in a 1982 NBS study on high security locking devices [66], reliance on

experts is the most reliable source to determine the performance of

particular locking systems.

Card-Access Systems . Card-access systems have advantages and disadvantages

when compared to the more conventional and lock-and-key systems. Some of

their advantages are: improved security (literally pick-proof by

conventional methods, less easily duplicated, easily voided if lost by

deleting data from the central controller) ; readers are constantly monitored

and all activities are logged on a permanent record; and various areas of

access and time-of-day access are easily controlled. Some disadvantages

are: higher cost; higher failure rate than mechanical lock-and-key systems;

false alarms; and vulnerability to vandalism [64]. Based on this study,

however, information on the use of and experiences with card-access and/or

coded-credential systems in correctional facilities appears to be limited.

38
8. Interior Lighting

General . As part of the recent major changes which have taken place in the

design and management of correctional institutions, lighting design has also

experienced a radical change. "No longer is the single incandescent bulb

within its surrounding metal cage an acceptable source of illumination for a cell [67]?" Fluorescent lighting is now widely used in modern correctional

facilities because of its proven efficiency, utility and low maintenance.

There are conditions, of course, where an incandescent fixture or feature

may be desirable (i.e., night light).

In facilities where there are two tiers of cells clustered about a dayroom,

it is important that the circulation path immediately in front of the banks

of the cells be sufficiently illuminated to facilitate detection of any

movement by the correctional officer. Similarly, the lighting design for

the control rooms or stations at each housing unit is very important. Three

suggested rules [67] for the lighting design of these spaces are: (1) Never

set illumination levels within the control room higher than the levels in

the surrounding spaces. Higher light levels hinder visibility of officers

and increase possibility of the "fishbowl" phenomenon. (2) Provide maximum

flexibility in the lighting controls. This will improve daytime and

nighttime operations, and can be accomplished with multiple switching of

lamps within fixtures, or rheostat controls, or a combination of both. (3)

Ask questions to determine what equipment is to be located in the control

room (CCTV monitors, CRT-based computerized control system), the type of

glazing to be used, etc. so appropriate light levels can.be achieved.

Lighting Fixtures . Some key considerations in selecting lighting fixtures

are: a lens that resists breakage under direct attack; a wraparound

lens/housing that can be removed only with a special type of tool not

readily available; and some provision for use flexibility (i.e., a fixture

that offers more than minimum security features to accommodate possible

future reclassification of the facility) [68]. According to a recent

article [69], light fixture abuse and breakage is a primary reason

facilities are found in noncompliance with ACA illumination accreditation

requirements (i.e., Section 2-4130 requires lighting to measure at least 20

foot candles at desk level and in the personal grooming area) . To prevent

common abuses of cell lighting fixtures, various construction and guide

specifications reviewed generally require a minimum metal thickness for the

fixture housing, the lenses to be made with polycarbonate of a specified

minimum thickness, and specify how the lens retention system is to be

constructed, etc. As the security levels increase (minimum to maximum),

more sturdy and heavier materials are specified for the lighting fixtures.

However, no test methods for determining the impact and tampering resistance

or durability of lighting fixtures were discovered in the standards review

for this study (Appendix B)

.

A series of tests to ascertain the strength of five lighting fixtures was

conducted in December 1985 by the Utah Division of Corrections [70]. Assault

tools used were a hammer and screwdriver. Some recommendations made as a result of this testing were: (1) polycarbonate should be used as the

diffuser material; (2) the prismatic layer of the diffuser should also be

39
made of polycarbonate; (3) if glass must be used, beware of perpendicular

lens - re taining bolts welded to the housing ( i.e., they can allow excessive

pressure to be applied to the glass resulting in breakage) ; (4) for a surface mount fixture, the steel thickness of the door should be at least

the same as the housing; (5) a no-door frame design should be used for

maximum security facilities; and (6) powder-coated metal is more abuse

resistant than baked enamel and its impact resistance is 12 times greater.

9. Fire Safety

General . A study of fires in correctional facilities (1967 - 1977)

indicates that a typical fire is of incendiary origin and is started in a

cell [71]. The source of ignition is generally a match, smoking material,

or cigarette lighter. Principal materials first ignited were mattresses,

bedclothes, and personal clothing. These types of fire generate intense

heat and dense smoke that quickly invades all corridors and adjoining areas,

hindering safe evacuation of the occupants [72].

The National Fire Codes published by the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA) is a large set of generally accepted fire safety

standards and guidelines that, if followed, will provide a high level of

safety in any building. The standards range from the National Electric

Code- -which includes standards for selecting and installing electric wires,

conduits, and the like--to the Life Safety Code--which includes minimum

requirements for emergency exit capacity. Those requirements in the

National Fire Codes that apply equally to jails, to prisons, and to a variety of other buildings will not be discussed in this section.

Discussion will be limited to those standards that apply mainly to jails and

prisons, and to those standards where there may need to be special

requirements for detention occupancies. Brief summary descriptions of

various standards (NFPA, ASTM, UL, etc.) relating to fire safety are

contained in Appendix B.

The American Correctional Association (ACA) "Standards for Adult

Correctional Institutions" [22] specify that specific fire safety features

be installed in correctional institutions and that specific fire safety

procedures be followed. However, it does not provide detailed requirements

for these features and procedures. For example, standard 2-4162 (January

1984) requires that the institution comply with applicable fire safety

code(s) and have a fire alarm and automatic detection system approved by the

authority having jurisdiction. The ACA standards also indicate that "In the

event local and/or state codes are not applicable, the requirements of the

NFPA Life Safety Code, current edition, apply."

Life Safety Requirements . The 1981 edition of the Life Safety Code,

published by NFPA, contained two new chapters specially covering jails and

prisons: Chapter 14, New Detention and Correctional Occupancies; and Chapter

15, Existing Detention and Correctional Occupancies. These two chapters

specify a set of fire safety features that appear to provide a combination

of a high level of safety and a practical set of requirements. However,

there has been no intensive effort to check on the acceptance of these

standards, and the fire experience of buildings meeting the requirements.

40
Retrofitting buildings to meet a new set of requirements is often difficult

and expensive. The Life Safety Code (1985 edition) permits use of (and

contains a description of) a new Firesafety Evaluation System for Detention

and Correctional Occupancies (FSES). The FSES , developed by the NBS Center

for Fire Research in a NIJ sponsored study, contains a procedure for

determining if alternate combinations of fire safety features provide the

level of safety required by the code. Permitting alternate combinations of

fire safety features gives the architect flexibility to upgrade the fire

safety to the desired level at minimal cost [73]

.

A key concept in the current requirements is that there are five levels of

freedom of movement in jails and prisons that relate to fire safety and the

ability of prisoners to evacuate to an area of safety. These range from: 1)

buildings where the prisoners have free access to an area out of the

building, to 2) buildings where movement from the smoke compartment is

restricted by a locked door that requires staff controlled manual release.

The higher levels of restricted movement require more safety features,

especially better separations between adjacent rooms, rooms and corridors,

and common space and other areas.

The Life Safety Code specifies that other standards be used for the design

and installation of subsystems. Among these other standards are alarm

systems that require the use of smoke detectors and pull boxes. The Life

Safety Code permits and describes variations in the normal installation of

these devices to minimize false alarms and malicious mischief. Proper

application of these variations would require knowledge of both fire

protection and prison operations.

Test Data . Prisons and jails vary greatly in design and function. There is a large amount of test data related to the burning of products and the

growth of fire that relate to designing and furnishing all buildings

including jails and prisons. (A report of this nature cannot cover this

large technical literature.) On the other hand, little data exist relative

to the unique situations found in jails and prisons.

One of the important ways that prison cells differ from typical bedrooms is

the amount, nature, and location of the combustibles. Prisoners tend to

neatly store large amount of combustibles under their beds. In case of a cell fire, the possessions under the bed are a major source of fuel for the

fire. B. T. Lee, National Bureau of Standards, conducted a series of

instrumented burns of a "typical cell" to obtain data regarding the amount

of heat, smoke, and carbon monoxide production [74], Since the growth of a big fire in a small room is a function of the amount of available air, Lee

used four different doorway ventilation conditions. As anticipated, the

study showed that the fires were ventilation controlled; that is, if there

41
is a big opening- -say , an open door- -there can be a dramatically large fire

which is called flashover .

Sprinklers . Automatic sprinklers are very effective in controlling a wide

variety of building fires. The idea is to apply a relatively large amount

of water on or near a small fire before the fire becomes too large for the

prescribed water flow to control it. The claim has been made that the use

of sprinkler systems in jails and high security prisons is a problem because

the prisoners are likely to attempt to vandalize the system. On the other

hand, some claim that this problem is exaggerated because the vandal is

likely to be known and punished by the prison authorities or by fellow

prisoners who will be inconvenienced. In any event, automatic sprinklers

are being installed in some jails and prisons.

NFPA Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems (NFPA 13) provides

detailed guidance for the design and installation of automatic sprinkler

systems. The standard prescribes the locations and characteristics of the

sprinkler heads. These locations depend on the geometry of the room and the

characteristics of the potential fires. Where there is no vandalism

problem, these well established sprinkler requirements should apply for most

prison situations.

Padding . Padding on walls and floors as used in "padded cells" to limit

self-harm potential are a well known fire hazard. They are usually made of

combustible material. Furthermore, to obtain the desired padding

characteristics the padding may be up to several inches thick which means

that if there were a fire, there would be a large amount of fuel.

Williamson and Fisher [75,76] have analyzed the fire safety of padded cells

and have conducted fire tests of the padding materials. Their results are

reflected in the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Chapter 12-42.

There appear to be four approaches to providing fire safety in a cell with

padding

:

1. Use materials that will not readily burn. In selecting padding

materials, it must be recognized that materials that will not

sustain a fire on a horizontal nor a vertical surface, might burn

vigorously if a flame is applied to a corner configuration.

2. Install an automatic sprinkler system in the cell. Cells with

padding are likely to have little if any furniture that would

separate a sprinkler head from the flame and, therefore,

Many definitions for "flashover" appear in the literature. The most

common of which are: "(1) the transition from a local fire to the general

conflagration within the compartment when all fuel surfaces are burning; (2)

the transition from a fuel controlled fire to a ventilation controlled fire;

and (3) the sudden propagation of flame through the unburnt gases and vapors

collected under the ceiling." (From "An Introduction to Fire Dynamics,"

Dougal Drysdale, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 1985.)

42
sprinklers with a sufficient water flow and proper water spray

pattern should be effective. However, specific design guidelines

for installing sprinklers in padded cells have not been

established.

3. Separate the padded cell from the remainder of the building by

doors and walls that will contain the smoke and fire for

sufficient time to extinguish the fire and/or evacuate the other

prisoners in the buildings ; that is , safety is obtained by

compartmentation

.

4. Procedures for rapidly evacuating occupants who are in the same

smoke area as the cell with padding must be established in each

facility. Guidelines for developing these procedures need to be

developed.

The Life Safety Code strongly recommends that padded cells not be used due

to the record of major fires which originated in such cells. However, when

padded cells are used, it requires compar tmentation , sprinklers, and

procedures for rapidly evacuating the prisoners. There are no requirements

in the Life Safety Code for the padding material.

While the Life Safety Code requires sprinklers in padded cells and calls

padded cells severe hazard areas, it does not specify which occupancy

classification for determining sprinkler requirements applies.

One of the compartmentation requirements is that the padded cell have a fire

resistent door (3/4 hour rating) that is self closing and self latching.

While this fire safety feature provides for the safety of other occupants of

the correctional facility, its impact on the fire safety of the occupant (s)

of the padded cell needs to be studied; it is likely that it will decrease

the time available to safely release the prisoner from the padded cell.

Currently, there is no nationally recognized test (or set of tests) that

will satisfactorily test the flammability characteristics of padding

materials for installation in padded cells. A test protocol has been

developed for a similar situation that may serve as a basis for a test of

padding materials. Research conducted at NBS has demonstrated that fire

hazards associated with the use of certain synthetic foam materials, in the

insulation of the interior of submarines, can be satisfactorily assessed

only with room fire testing and not with small scale laboratory fire tests

which are used for measuring fire properties of materials. B.T. Lee

developed a quarter-scale room fire test protocol for testing compartments

with the insulation [77]. The similarities of the fire characteristics of

the materials and their application to walls suggest that a similar test

protocol may be used to test padded cell materials.

Mattresses and Furnishings . Mattress fires are a serious threat because

mattresses contain a considerable amount of fuel--the fire does not need to

spread to another object in order to have a dangerous situation. There is a national standard for the resistance of mattresses to ignition (CPSC FF4-72)

43
but it measures only the resistance to a smoldering ignition such as the

resistance to a carelessly discarded cigarette. In a prison, there is the

problem of deliberately set fires using a flaming source of heat. A

standard for determining the resistance of mattresses to flaming ignition is

therefore needed.

Babrauskas [78,79] compared bench scale tests to full scale tests to see how

well the practical bench scale tests predict the burning characteristics of

a variety of commercially available mattresses in expensive to run full

scale tests. The ignition source was a burning plastic wastebasket. Based

on the test results, he developed criteria for four levels of flammability.

These flammability levels are based on the rate of heat release and the

amount of smoke generated. Test methods for determining the rate of heat

release and the smoke production needed to assign a mattress to one of the

four levels were also developed and published.

A test for prison mattresses has been developed by the state of California.

The California test requires a full scale instrumented fire test of a mattress in a room 10 ft. by 12 ft. by 8 ft. high. The ignition source is a

bucket filled with crumpled newspapers placed beneath the center of the

mattress. The three pass/fail criteria are: maximum weight loss of the

mattress in the first 10 minutes - 10%; maximum ceiling temperature - less

than 500 degrees F; and maximum carbon monoxide concentration - 1,000 ppm

[80].

Fire Response Plans . The ACA Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions

requires written emergency plans, including, for example, written policy and

procedures (2-4173) that specify the means for the immediate release of

inmates from endangered locked areas in case of emergency. The development

of such plans must balance the need to protect the prisoners from injury due

to fire and the need to maintain security and order. A combination of a

properly designed and equipped facility and a good emergency plan can assure

both safety and security.

Fire Alarm Systems . The purpose of fire alarm systems in prisons and jails

is similar to that of fire alarm systems in other occupancies. The purpose

is to alert the occupants, the fire department and/or the people managing

the building, about the possibility of a fire emergency so that they can

take the proper actions.

There are two major differences between prisons and other occupancies that

affect system design. First, in many cases, the prisoners will not be

allowed to leave on their own volition for security purposes; and second, in

many cases, smoke detectors, heat detectors, and manual pull boxes will have

to be placed out of the reach of the prisoners to avoid malicious damage and

false alarms.

Currently there are a series of standards published by NFPA relating to the

installation and application of fire alarm systems. None include any

specific information regarding the system design for alarm systems for

prisons. However, they do provide a candidate set of requirements for the

44
components of such a system: some of these need to be modified to reflect

the unique characteristics of prisons.

Some of the standards include requirements on the control unit (central

panel) which forms the heart of a system. Others cover installation

guidelines on equipment to be connected to the control unit to form the

system, such1 as: automatic fire detectors (heat and smoke); audible

signaling appliances to sound an evacuation signal during a fire; and

supplementary components, (such as annunciators to identify the location of

the fire, and printers to make a record for the fire department). An NFPA

standard exists which includes requirements on testing and maintenance of a system.

While NFPA standards include installation criteria for the various parts of

a fire alarm system, the performance of the equipment is evaluated by

testing agencies, such as Underwriters Laboratories and Factory Mutual

Corporation.

The use of smoke detectors in exhaust ducts appears promising in those

situations where they can be maintained and tested, and are accessible to

the prison staff but not to the prisoners. Underwriters Laboratories

Standard UL 268A, Standard for Smoke Detectors for Duct Applications,

defines the characteristics of smoke detectors installed in ducts. (If a duct receives air from a number of rooms, the smoke will be too diluted to

activate the detector in a timely fashion.)

F. Control Center

General . A control center is essential for integrating the various security

and communication functions for a detention or correctional facility. It is

staffed around the clock, and must be secure from outside assault, and

located to permit good visibility of the areas it is designed to monitor

(e.g., entrance sallyports, circulation between buildings, etc.). In

addition to serving as the communications center for a facility, control

center activities also - frequently include controlling the facility's

entrance and exit traffic, recording inmate counts, key control, operation

of electrically controlled doors, and coordination of the facility's

internal and perimeter security network. It is also usually provided with

the capabilities to control and/or monitor the operations of the following

systems: fire alarm, public address, smoke and thermal detection, radio,

teletype, computer terminal, surveillance alarms, walk and perimeter

lighting, and other mechanical and electrical systems [12,22].

Placement of mimic panels, CRT displays, CCTV monitors, printers, and other

components of the various systems noted above should permit all systems to

be controlled and/or monitored from one location in the control center [30].

Use of a separate HVAC system for the control center should also be

considered.

Communication Systems . The various communication systems which may used in

a facility -- telephone, intercom, CCTV, public address, two-way radios,

personal alarms -- should be integrated with the security systems to meet

45
the functional needs of a particular facility. Historically, telephone

equipment has consisted of two systems, one operating inside the facility

and the other operating outside. Current technology permits a single solidstate telephone system that combines the security features of an inside

system with the flexibility of an outside system [12].

All correctional facilities utilize extensive intercom systems not only for

inmate control, but also as a redundant staff communications system [14]. A

well designed, integrated intercom system can reduce staffing and support

security and life safety. Specialized systems may also be used for door

control, inmate visiting and line-up, and nurse call systems. CGTV systems

for interior surveillance and door control are usually designed in

conjunction with the intercom system for maximum functionality.

Public address systems allow control center staff to make general or

emergency announcements or locate other staff members within the facility.

A combination of portable radios and a base station provides another

flexible, two-way communications link between staff members either inside or

outside the facility including perimeter patrols, fire and rescue units,

etc

.

Personal alarm systems are provided to selected staff personnel to summon

assistance in an emergency [12]. These alarms, when activated, transmit a

signal to the control center. Some also have an added capability of 10 to

15 seconds of voice transmission. Specifications for personal alarm

systems, which include functional tests, have been developed by the

California Department of Corrections [81].

Although this study did not review and evaluate existing standards

pertaining to communication systems, there does appear to be a lack of

detailed guidance available for selecting such systems for correctional

facilities. In addition, there is a need for criteria to assist architects

and correctional officials in planning and designing control centers.

G. Economic Evaluations

Since there are many opportunities in correctional facility design to select

alternate materials, equipment and systems (i.e., glazing, plumbing and

lighting fixtures, perimeter security, etc.) with different levels of

performance and durability, the economic impact of these design decisions

are very important and need to be evaluated. A typical breakdown of the

initial construction costs (excluding land acquisition) for a correctional

facility is about as follows [13,82]:

46
o Architectural fees 7%

o Owner administration &

insurance 4%

o Site preparation (surveys,

testing) 4%

o Equipment & furnishings 10%

o Plumbing & electrical 15%

o Heating, ventilation &

air conditioning 10%

o General construction 50%

o Total construction costs 100%

The average cost per cell for medium security prisons in 1986 was reported

as $60,342 [83]. Although these initial construction costs for new prisons

are high, the operating costs for a facility may be 16 times the cost of

construction over a 30-year to 40-year period [28,84]. As discussed

previously, staffing, utility and maintenance costs comprise about 80% of

the life-cycle costs for a facility.

Standard practices for evaluating various economic measures (life-cycle

costs, benefit- to-cost and savings -to- investment ratios, payback for

investments, etc.) for buildings and building systems have been developed by

ASTM Committee E-6 on Performance of Building Construction (see Appendix B)

.

Although these ASTM practices would be very useful in correctional facility

design, no references to their availability and use was found in the

articles and reports reviewed in this study.

47
IV. Discussion and Conclusions

A. General

Prior Study Recommendations . In one of the DOJ studies [28] cited

previously, the following items were included in a list of 14

recommendations offered concerning the selection of materials, hardware and

equipment

:

o "Needs and expectations for the equipment and components are

clearly defined. Definitions of needs are an integral part of the

architectural program.

o "Facility security personnel are consulted in assessment of needs

and selection of security systems and components.

o "Selection of security systems and facility equipment addresses

physical and functional capability of each item or part. A

package is included in the architectural program.

o "A system of establishing materials capabilities that includes

'failure parameters' for hardware is achieved through testing and

setting specifications by the manufacturer, vendor, and

independent lab and/or the buyer, and whenever possible, use of

components on a trial basis.

o "Facility materials, hardware and equipment are selected

consistent with the philosophy and mission statement of the

facility, and include consideration of: security levels needed;

staff-inmate interaction/contact; and possible shifts in mission

over time

.

o "Factors in the selection of hardware and equipment are: staff

capabilities for operating components; training of staff in the

proper operation and use of equipment and components prior to

facility opening and regularly thereafter; operating costs and

servicing requirements; maintenance capabilities, including the

size, availability and skills of the maintenance group, and the

funds available for purchase of supplies, parts, tools and

replacement items .

In regard to the materials and equipment problems reported in small jails

[29], it is noted that such facilities usually do not have the experienced

maintenance personnel to cope with "state-of-the-art" security/detention

equipment. Accordingly, architects should simplify systems whenever

possible for remote small county jails. Similarly, owners should ensure

that someone is trained to perform routine maintenance to avoid equipment

breakdown. Small jails typically do not have adequate personnel for inmate

programs or supervision. Inmates, therefore, have more opportunity to

vandalize furnishings, equipment, etc.

48
Correctional Official Recommendations . In conjunction with this study,

various state correctional officials were asked for recommendations for

specific studies or research needed to improve the state-of-the-art of

selecting materials equipment and systems for correctional facilities.

Responses received are contained in the following paragraphs.

State E

"1. The owners and planners need to set a clear program statement with

regard to the needs the facility is to serve, security needs, type of

equipment and hardware to meet those needs and a realistic staffing

commitment

.

"Often times the architect and their consultants are put on line first

and tell the owners what they will give and they can make a case for

not buying in to their plan as everything else will cost more, and the

planners are not willing to pursue other courses of action.

"A program statement can be set by using (our) county staff . . . at no

cost. When this is done, the county has control and can tell the

architects what they want.

"2. When plans and specifications are approved by all parties involved,

it must be understood that is what the county wants to buy. I have had

problems with changes being made in the specifications by bidders when

they have to submit 'shop drawings'. This is more true with detention

equipment suppliers. There must be a second approval by a technician

person to catch any changes before actual construction to avoid costly

change orders or permitting the wrong installation that could be unsafe

or not secure.

"3. During the construction phase there must be a person on the site to

assure proper installation. In many cases where there is special

equipment such as detention systems, a general contractor does not know

what to look for and things can be deleted or installed improperly and

not found out until the installers are done and gone.

"4. A good installer of detention equipment is vital. The owners must

insist the firm that is successful with the bid insure that the

installers are part of their firm or totally responsible to them in the

contract

.

"All detention firms that I have had dealings with have a basic good

product, but in some case the installer was not tied to the detention

firm and they tried to cut corners and in two cases, the projects were

delayed at a cost to the owners. Installers must remain on the job

unless released by owners.

"5. Perimeter security of any facility is vital. The staff must

control everything that comes and goes in the jail. If the inmates

49
cannot make or get in material to vandalize equipment, the equipment

should not fail.

"For medium and maximum security all openings must be protected with

bars or masonry, if the opening is over 5 1/2 inches. The openings

than must also be protected against small items of contraband with

security screen or in the case of window that don't need to open by

security glass.

"Walls and ceilings must be masonry or steel to prevent escape. All

doors must have security locks. Builders hardware equipment and locks

must never be used in a detention facility."

State F

"Based on (our) experience since 1980, which includes the design and

construction of all levels of security from minimum to maximum .... most functional problems have been caused by the quality of workmanship

or installation, not equipment, materials or systems. It is suggested

that the execution portion of the specification sections and its

enforcement be focused on.

"No standard criteria can be addressed until the diversity of design

philosophies from state to state is dealt with. It is our feeling that

the only way this can be achieved is to deal with it through a

mandatory accreditation program with Federal assistance funds to

match."

State G

"Studies which focus on specific construction materials, systems and

equipment, the potential problems and track record of each under actual

operating conditions would be most helpful. The abuse which a prison

receives under actual operating conditions is very hard to duplicate in

a research facility or a non-prison environment. There is a wealth of

data waiting to be collected and presented which could prevent

millions of dollars in design errors being committed in the future.

There are lessons that we have learned . . . which I am certain could be

of use to other states around the country and vice versa; however, the

clearinghouse for this information is, to my knowledge, not yet

available. Until this type of information become readily accessible it

seems a certainty that the same incorrect material and equipment

selections will continue to be made time after time by different

governing authorities. The application of more consistent standards,

uniformly accepted and adhered to by the security industry are of

primary importance in ensuring a certain level of statistical data

collected under actual prison operating conditions can, in the long

run, guarantee a product's long term usability. This usability being

defined not only by a product's mechanical properties, which can be

properly determined in a laboratory, but also by the overall design of

the product. This includes it's ability to resist tampering with by

inmates, how easily it can be worked on and understood by typical

50
corrections maintenance personnel, the level of field support provided

by the manufacturer or supplier (parts and service availability) and

the degree of user sophistication required. Until all of these

considerations are taken into account, it is very difficult to

determine with any certainty how usable a particular product will be."

B. Conclusions

As discussed in Section III, few standards (test methods, specifications,

practices) are available which directly relate to special materials,

equipment and systems used in detention and correctional facilities.

Accordingly, when the architect and correctional official specify and select

equipment and systems for a new facility, they rely, in most instances, on

data from non-standard test methods, performance information based on prior

use, recommendations from manufacturers and consultants, and their own

judgement. The evaluation of innovative or new systems is also difficult

because of the absence of test methods. In addition, the lack of standards

makes if difficult, if not impossible, to match performance levels of the

various components which comprise a particular system. Similarly, where

equipment, etc. is specified for different security levels (i.e., maximum,

medium, minimum), the general approach is to use prescriptive standards

instead of performance standards because of the lack of performance test

methods

.

Based on data and information presented in this study, it is therefore

concluded, that performance criteria and standards are needed for improving

the state-of-the-art of selecting materials, equipment and systems to be

used in detention and correctional facilities. Activities for developing

these performance criteria and standards are discussed in the following

sections

.

1. Performance Criteria for Correctional Facilities

Objectives . Because of the broad range of problems and needs identified

(Section II and III), criteria for the performance of building materials,

equipment and systems to be used in correctional facilities should be

developed. These criteria would have the following objectives:

1. Establish performance levels for building materials, equipment and

systems which are consistent with the security and custody levels

used in correctional facilities.

2. Establish standard performance measures with regard to security,

safety and durability for building materials, equipment and

systems

.

The performance criteria would serve as a technical resource and reference

for correctional officials, architects, engineers, material and equipment

manufacturers, contractors, etc. The criteria would also benefit

correctional facility building programs by providing a technical performance

assessment base from which project specifications and uniform methods for

evaluating materials, equipment and systems can be developed.

51
Scope . The criteria would consider aspects of planning, design and

construction different from conventional building by reason of their

security, safety and durability considerations . They would, within the

framework of their development, generate new knowledge relating building

design, construction and security and are intended to:

1. Verify, refine and further develop security performance

requirements of correctional facilities as building design, and

building materials, equipment and systems used in those designs

are modified.

2. Through performance standards development, and an updated data

base of performance data, help ensure that the systems, materials,

components, hardware and equipment are durable, reliable, readily

maintainable, constructed in accordance with good practice, and

meet the requirements for the rigors of use within the facility.

3. Provide appropriate instructions and information to help operate

and service security systems and equipment.

4. Provide accepted practices which facilitate improved security

system and equipment installation and performance.

Organization and Format . The performance criteria document would be

organized on the basis of performance criteria dealing with security

systems, components, equipment, and materials and their integration into the

building(s) or facility.

Performance statement entries would be presented in the Requirement,

Criterion, Evaluation, and Commentary format [85]. The Requirement is a

qualitative statement giving the user need or expectation for the item being

addressed. It is a general statement of what the system or its components

shall be able to do. The Criterion is generally a quantitative statement

giving the level of performance required to meet the application or

expectation for the item being addressed. The criteria associated with each

requirement state those considerations necessary to meet the requirement.

Due to limitations in the state-of-the-art, a quantitative statement would

not always be contained in each criterion. In addition, quantitative

statements would be omitted in some criteria where values are to be provided

by the designer. The Evaluation sets forth the record of experience,

methods of test and/or other information upon which an evaluative judgement

of compliance with a criterion will be based. It states the standards,

inspection methods, analyses, review procedures, historical documentation,

or other methods that may be used in evaluating whether not the system and

its components comply with the criterion. The Commentary provides

background information and presents the rationale behind the selection of

specific data presented in the Requirement, Criterion or Evaluation. The

Commentary is intended for informational purposes and in some instances,

provides design guidelines. Such guidelines are only one suggestion of

appropriate methods; in most instances, there will be other methods equally

as effective. Including a commentary ensures a workable process of updating

performance criteria, and when questions arise as to the basis for a

52
particular criterion, the reader will have available the rationale for its

selection.

Content . At the programming level, criteria would be developed to address

the overall facility, its functional operations, interrelationships between

various systems, and security levels that are required for various spaces

and systems. For instance, quantification of performance for maximum level

security may require, from a functional point of view, that no prisoner is

left unobserved for over fifteen minutes. The medium security level may

have a different criterion. Development of general functional criteria for

security levels, spatial relationships, building systems, etc. would assist

the "owner" in defining specific functional needs for a given facility.

Also, for the architect, such criteria would assist in establishing

performance requirements for the facility and for specific materials,

systems and equipment. Criteria at this level will help ensure that the

systems, materials, and equipment specified and selected will be consistent

with the security levels, mission, and staffing of the proposed facility.

Criteria would also be developed for the major perimeter and building

systems used in correctional facilities. These criteria would indicate the

performance (security, durability, etc.) levels needed for the particular

system (e.g., fence, intrusion detection, wall, lighting) under

consideration. The establishment of criteria at the system level would also

provide a better basis for defining performance requirements for the various

materials, components and equipment which constitute a specific system.

Criteria for installation, testing, operation and maintenance of different

equipment and systems would also be addressed.

The performance criteria should also contain guidelines for post occupancy

evaluation of the facility. Such evaluations, made at various intervals

after a newly constructed facility has been put into use, would identify

problems or potential problems which need to corrected and provide valuable

information for the design of new facilities at some future date.

2. Standards for Materials, Equipment, and Systems

Standard test methods are important evaluative tools to measure the

performance of materials, equipment and systems. Standards can also

simplify the specification of materials, etc. and provide guidance on

various analysis, construction, installation and testing practices. Based

on the performance problems and the lack of adequate standards identified in

this study, activities should be undertaken to develop new standards or

modify existing standards as discussed in the following paragraphs. (For

background information on the different types of standards (i.e., test

methods, specifications, practices f guides) and the development of national

consensus standards, the reader may wish to refer to Appendix A.)

Since this report is the result of an initial study, it is anticipated that

the following list will be revised as suggestions and comments are received

from correctional officials, architects, engineers, manufacturers, standards

development committees, professional groups and associations, etc.

53
General

Guide for the Physical Security of Correctional Facilities . Although a few

guides and recommendations are available for selecting different types of

equipment and systems, there is no overall guide (as identified in this

study) for determining or assessing the overall physical security of a correctional facility. Such a guide would aid architects and correctional

officials in evaluating physical security requirements during the planning

and design of a new or modified facility. The guide could be a narrative

description, a series of check lists of factors to be considered, a computer

model, etc. Where appropriate, the development of this guide should draw

upon relevant information and methodologies prepared for other types of

facilities (military, nuclear, commercial) where physical security is a major consideration.

Guide for a Post-Qccupancv Evaluation of a Correctional Facility . Based on

this study, it is not clear how many correctional agencies have developed

formal guides, practices, or programs for conducting post-occupancy

evaluations of facilities. One state which has such a program is

California. In this program, Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is ' "the

practice of using qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate spaces

and operations to determine how well buildings support their activities and

users [86]." Some evaluations are conducted before the facility is

completed and others two or three years after the institution is fully

activated. One of the evaluations is a "design analysis" which focuses on

the design and operations of a completed area. It assesses various systems

and components such as lighting, furnishings, security hardware and

communications, both individually and as they relate to other features and

operations in the building. A guide for conducting a POE would be a valuable tool in providing data which could be used in making betterinformed planning, design, construction and operational decisions.

Guide for the Integration of Electronic Securitv/Communication/Safetv

Systems . The selection and integration of electronic security,

communication, and safety systems is one of the most difficult and important

design challenges to providing a secure and safe facility. Information on

the performance of a particular system can be obtained from the manufacturer

of that system. However, little information is available to assist the

architect and owner in selecting systems which work effectively in a given

environment with other systems or how they should be integrated with other

systems. A guide outlining factors to be considered in this selection and

integration process would be very useful document for correctional facility

designers

.

Guide for the Maintenanca of Equipment and Systems . Training of maintenance

staff, good operating and maintenance manuals, and scheduling of routine and

preventative maintenance are important elements in keeping equipment and

systems functioning at expected performance levels. This recommended guide

would address the above mentioned elements and describe considerations for

developing an effective correctional facility maintenance program.

54
Perimeter Systems

Specifications for Security Fences and Gates . As reviewed in Section

III.D.2, twenty four (24) existing standards were identified in this study

pertaining to fences, gates, barbed tape, etc. Although no major problems

with perimeter fences and gates were noted, it would be desirable to develop

a standard specification specifically covering security fences and gates for

correctional facilities. Such a specification would address performance

areas important for jails and prisons, and assist in establishing improved

and more uniform requirements for fences and gates used in these facilities.

Using the existing standards as a base, this standard specification could

cover requirements for materials (fence fabric, posts, barbed tape, etc.) as

well as their installation. Needed tests for barbed tape attachments and

fabric tension could be included in either this standard or another test

method standard.

Test Methods for Intrusion Detection Sensors and Systems . Considerable

problems (false alarms, difficult maintenance, etc.) have been reported with

intrusion detection systems [28]. Although some states [30,31] have

developed guide specifications and acceptance tests for such systems, there

are no national standards for testing these systems. Since performance

requirements (false alarm rates, probability of detection) are used by some

agencies to select these systems, standard test methods are needed to

determine compliance with these requirements. For fence sensors and

systems, performance tests should include response to climbing (fast and

slow), cutting, and deformation. For other types of sensors and systems

(Section III.D.3), test methods should include response to walking, running,

crawling, and rolling. Tests for evaluating sensor and system performance

under different environmental conditions should also be included.

Specifications for Perimeter Intrusion Detection Systems . For the various

types of intrusion detection systems discussed in Section III.D.3, standard

specifications should be developed. Among requirements to be included in

these specifications are: minimum performance levels (false alarm rates,

probability of detection), alarm assessment and reporting, and installation

practices. Test methods for sensors and systems (discussed above) would be

included in these specifications by reference.

Building Systems

Test Methods for Security Doors and Hardware . As noted in Section II. E. 4,

guide specifications are available for detention security hollow metal doors

[54]. In addition, an ASTM Subcommittee (A01.16) is currently preparing a specification covering swinging detention door assemblies. These standards

development activities should be continued to prepare national standards.

Test methods and specifications are also needed to cover security doors and

hardware constructed to meet various levels of performance (maximum, medium,

and minimum)

.

Laboratory Test Methods for Security Glazing . Various physical attack test

methods for security glazing were briefly reviewed in Section III.E.6. In

addition to completing the current ASTM Committee F12 work on a field- type

55
physical attack test, a laboratory test method for physical attack

resistance of security glazing should also be prepared. Since considerable

laboratory testing has been completed [59,62], there is an excellent

starting basis for preparing a standard test method.

Test Methods for Locks and Access Control Systems . Several lock standards

developed by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) and Builder Hardware

Manufacturers Association, Inc. (BHMA) are cited in product literature and

correctional facility specifications. However, these standards do not

describe any unique tests for determining the performance of locks, locking

devices, or access control systems used in correctional facilities.

Considering the number of problems previously cited (Section III.B),

additional studies should be undertaken to develop improved performance test

methods for locks, locking devices, and access control systems used in jails

and prisons

.

Laboratory Test Methods for Durability of Lighting Fixtures . To provide a better basis for determining performance levels for the durability of

lighting fixtures used in correctional facilities (especially those used in

cells), laboratory test methods should be developed. These test methods

should address the impact and tamper resistance of the fixture (lens and

housing), the combustibility of the lens, etc.

Specifications for Security Lighting Fixtures . As in the case of security

doors, various existing specifications and recommendations for security

lighting fixtures contain prescriptive requirements for their construction

(Section III.E.8). Using this information, a standard specification should

be developed to indicate minimum acceptable materials (type and thickness)

and construction types for lighting fixtures used in areas with different

security levels.

Fire Safety

Test Methods for Flaming Ignition of Mattresses . As discussed in Section

III.E.9, a test procedure to measure the flaming ignition of mattresses has

been developed by California [80]. Because this test procedure is a fullscale fire test, it is very expensive to conduct. Based on prior NBS

research involving bench scale tests of mattresses [78,79], it is feasible

to develop standard bench scale test methods. These tests would: be less

expensive to run; allow more properties of materials and their combustion

products to be evaluated; and use standard test equipment.

Specifications /Guidelines for Fire Detectors and Alarms . Standards are

available which give general guidance for the application and installation

of fire alarms and smoke detectors. Proposed changes to these standards (or

separate guidelines) should be developed to give specific guidance for

designing and locating alarms and detectors in correctional facilities.

Guide for Developing Fire Emergency Plans . A fire emergency plan must be

tailored for the conditions and fire safety features of the individual jail

or prison. However, because there are similarities in correctional

facilities, guidelines should be prepared to assist in developing fire

56
emergency plans for individual institutions. Research should also be

conducted to determine if and how specific information about the fire

conditions can aid correctional officers in initiating specific safety

measures at the most appropriate time. For example, if the heat and carbon

monoxide levels are low (as determined from sensors) , it may be safe to

delay unlocking certain cells, etc.

Revisions to Life Safety Code . As experience is gained in using any set of

requirements, information is obtained that can be used to improve those

requirements. As mentioned previously, a new Firesafety Evaluation System

for Detention and Correctional Occupancies was incorporated into the NFPA

Life Safety Code in 1985. Since it takes years between the publication of a

new standard and the completion of buildings meeting the standard, it

appears that sufficient time has now passed to determine who has applied the

current requirements and to learn of their experiences and insights.

Information gained in these efforts would be developed into recommended

revisions to the Life Safety Code.

3. Data Base for the Performance of Materials, Equipment and Systems

As an important corollary effort for performance criteria and standards

development activities, there is also a need for a continuing activity to

collect performance data on materials, equipment, and systems used in

detention and correctional facilities. Information collected would provide

a data base which would be valuable for identifying problems and successes

with various systems, as well as developing guides to assist in future

facility design and construction activities. These data and information

could be compiled into "lessons learned" bulletins and provide a technical

resource for recommended performance criteria and standards development

activities discussed previously.

4. Economic Guide or Handbook

Because of the many opportunities (and challenges) for selecting materials,

equipment and systems with different performance and ^durability levels,

there is a need for a guide or handbook which would document and illustrate

the use of available standard economic analyses and practices (Appendix B)

.

This guide would be a valuable tool for assisting designers and correctional

officials in evaluating the life-cycle cost impact of alternate materials,

equipment, and systems.

57
V. Recommended Priorities for Future Activities

As a part of this study, a Review Committee was organized by NBS and a Review Committee meeting was held at NBS, Gaithersburg, MD , on July 2S-29,

1987. (For names of Review Committee members, see Acknowledgements). The

objectives of this meeting were to obtain: (1) comments and suggestions on a preliminary draft of this report; (2) assistance in finalizing a list of

future criteria and standards development activities; and (3) recommended

priorities for these future activities. For setting priorities, no specific

criteria were established. Accordingly, each committee member was permitted

to rank each activity according to his (or her) own professional background

and experience, discussions at the meeting, etc. Except as noted below, the

priority of each criteria and standards development activity listed is based

on a weighted average of the individual committee member rankings.

Criteria and Standards Development Activity Priority

o Test Methods for Locks and Access Control Systems High

o Test Methods for Flaming Ignition of Mattresses High

o Performance Criteria for Correctional Facilities High

o Test Methods for Security Doors and Hardware High

o Laboratory Test Methods for Security Glazing High

o Data Base - Performance of Materials, Equipment, & Systems High

o Specifications for Perimeter Intrusion Detection Systems High

o Guide for the Integration of Electronic Security/

Communication/Safety Systems Medium

o Guide for the Physical Security of Correctional Facilities Medium

o Test Methods for Intrusion Detection Sensors & Systems Medium

o Specifications/Guidelines for Fire Detectors Sc Alarms Medium

o Guide for Developing Fire Emergency Plans Medium^

o Specifications for Security Lighting Fixtures Low

o Guide for a Post-Occupancy Evaluation of a Correctional

Facility Low

o Economic Guide or Handbook Low

. Priority established by authors; not determined by Review

Committee members.

58
Criteria and Standards Development Activity (continued) Priority

o Laboratory Test Methods for Durability of Lighting

Fixtures Low

o Specifications for Security Fences and Gates Low

o Revisions to the Life Safety Code Low

o Guide for the Maintenance of Equipment and Systems Low

59
VI. References

1. "The 1983 Jail Census," U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics Bulletin, NCJ-95536, Washington, DC, November 1984.

2. "State and Federal Prisoners, 1925-85," U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ-102494, Washington, DC,

October 1986.

3. "Prisoners in 1986," U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics Bulletin, NCJ-104864, Washington, DC, May 1987.

4. "Jail Inmates, 1985," U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics Bulletin, NCJ-105586, Washington, DC, July 1987.

5. "New Construction Methods for Correctional Facilities," Charles B.

DeWitt, National Institute of Justice (NXJ) Construction Bulletin, NCJ

100121, Washington, DC, January 1986.

6. "Tougher Laws Fuel Prison Demand," Engineering News Record . McGrawHill, Inc., February 26, 1987, p. 17.

7. "Building on Experience," Charles B. DeWitt, NIJ and National Institute

of Corrections (NIC), NCJ 103869, Washington, DC, January 1987.

8. "Prison Outlays Spawn Work," Engineering News Record . McGraw-Hill,

Inc., January 8, 1987, p. 12.

9. "Corrections' Strength and Vision," T. Don Hutto, Corrections Today . American Correctional Association (ACA) , College Park, MD , October

1986, p.42.

10. Letter dated April 8, 1985 from Edgar A. Smith, Assistant Executive

Officer, California State Board of Corrections, to Lawrence Eliason,

National Bureau of Standards.

11. "Planning of New Institutions," NIC Jails Division, Boulder, CO, 1986.

12. "Design Guide for Secure Adult Correctional Facilities," American

Correctional Association, College Park, MD, 1983.

13. "Jail Planning & Construction Guide," Nebraska Jail Standards Board,

Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1987.

14. "More For Le$$ -- Jail Construction Cost Management Handbook," prepared

by Kitchell CEM for State of California Board of Corrections, 1987.

15. "Correctional Facility Planning and Design," Jay Farbstein, Van

Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., Second Edition, 1986.

60
16. "Small Jail Special Issues," KIMME Planning & Architecture, Champaign,

Illinois, prepared for NIC, February 1986.

17. "Designs for Contemporary Correctional Facilities," NIC Facilities

Monograph Project, Capital Publishing Company, 1985.

18. "Jail Security -- A Unique Challenge," Thomas R. Barry, Corrections

Today . American Correctional Association, College Park, MD, July 1987.

19. "Prison Classification -- A Model Systems Approach," NIC, Washington,

DC, 1983.

20. "Security Systems - Making an Intelligent Choice," Robert L. Turner,

NIC National Academy of Corrections Lesson Plan, June 23, 1986.

21. "Correctional Standards Supplement," American Correctional Association,

College Park, MD, January 1986.

22. "Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions," American Correctional

Association, College Park, MD, Second Edition, January 1981.

23. Quotation from Fred Moyer, Moyer Associates, in "Insecurities About

Security: Face to Face with the Building-Protection Crisis,"

Architectural Record . August 1987, p.127.

24. "1983 Architecture for Justice Exhibition," Committee on Architecture

for Justice, American Institute of Architects, Washington, DC, 1983.

25. "1984 Architecture for Justice Exhibition," Committee on Architecture

for Justice, American Institute of Architects, Washington, DC, 1984.

26. "1985 Architecture for Justice Exhibition," Committee on Architecture

for Justice, American Institute of Architects, Washington, DC, 1985.

27. "National Directory of Corrections Construction, First Edition,"

Charles B. DeWitt, NIJ , Washington, DC, August 1986.

28. "Correctional Facility Design and Construction," Dale K. Sechrest,

Shelley J. Price, NIJ, Washington, DC, February 1985.

29. "The Nature of New Small Jails: Report and Analysis," KIMME Planning &

Architecture, Champaign, Illinois, prepared for NIC, October 1985.

30. "Design Criteria Manual," Planning and Construction Division,

Department of Corrections, State of California, Sacramento, CA, (with

revisions through Dec. 15, 1986).

31. "D&C Master Specifications," Design and Construction Group, New York

Office of General Services, Albany, NY, March 2, 1987.

32. "Stopping Escapes: Perimeter Security," George and Camille Camp, NIJ

Construction Bulletin, NCJ 104600, Washington, DC, March 1987.

61
33. "Barrier Technology Handbook," SAND77-0777rev, Sandia National

Laboratories, Albuquerque; NM, 1981.

34. "Electronic Perimeter Security," Martin Weeden, Corrections Today . American Correctional Association, College Park, MD , April 1985.

35. "The Perimeter Security Sensor Dilemma," David E. Moore, Corrections

Today . American Correctional Association, College Park, MD, April 1986.

36. "Perimeter Security: New Technologies," C. Richard Brogan, Corrections

Today . American Correctional Association, College Park, MD, April 1987.

/ 37. "Perimeter Security -- Electronic Options," Corrections Today . American

Correctional Association, College Park, MD, April 1987.

38. "Electronic Perimeter Security: Have You Purchased a Solution or a Problem?," Francis J. Sheridan, Presentation at the 1986 ACA 116th

Congress of Correction, Las Vegas, Nevada.

39. "Intrusion Detection Systems Handbook," SAND7

6 -0554 , Sandia National

Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, August 1983.

40. "Perimeter Intrusion Alarm Systems," Regulatory Guide 5.44, Revision 2,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, May 1980.

41. "Commercial Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS)," Design Manual 13.02,

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, VA, September 1986.

42. "Closed-Circuit Television -- Components of Surveillance; Applying

Electronic Vision; Making Systems from Components; Terminology and

Resources," Security . Cahners Publishing Company, Newton, MA, July

1987.

43. "The Basics of CCTV," Herman Kruegle, Security Management . American

Society for Industrial Security, Arlington, VA, June 1981.

44. "Lighting Requirements for CCTV," Mark Glicksman, Security Management . American Society for Industrial Security, Arlington, VA, June 1981.

45. "Design for Security," Richard J. Healy, John Wiley & Sons, Second

Edition, 1983.

46. "Evaluation of Pre -Manufactured Housing for Correctional Purposes,"

Carter-Goble Associates, Inc., National Institute of Corrections,

Washington, DC, February 1984.

47. "Florida Sets Examples With Use of Concrete Modules," Charles B.

DeWitt, NIJ Construction Bulletin, NCJ 100125, Washington, DC, March

1986.

62
48. "Prefabrication -- How Well Does it Work," Robert S. George,

Corrections Today . American Correctional Association, College Park, MD

,

July 1987.

49. "Precast Concrete Construction Cuts Prison Costs," Fromy Rosenberg,

Corrections Today . American Correctional Association, College Park, MD

,

April 1984.

50. "California Tests New Construction Concepts," Charles B. DeWitt, NIJ

Construction Bulletin, NCJ 101593, Washington, DC, June 1986.

51. "Precast and Prestressed Concrete for Justice Facilities, " Walker

McGough Foltz Lyerla and The Consulting Engineers Group, Inc.,

Prestressed Concrete Institute, 1985.

52. "Minimum Jail Standards," Texas Commission on Jail Standards, Robert 0.

Viterna, Justin, Texas, January 31, 1984.

53. "County and Municipal Detention Facilities," Chapter 33-8, Florida

Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, FL, October 1986.

54. "Guide Specifications for Detention Security Hollow Metal Doors and

Frames," NAAMM Standard HMMA 863-87, The National Association of

Architectural Metal Manufacturers (NAAMM), Chicago, Illinois, 1987.

55. "Swinging in Your Favor," Donald C. Smeltzer and H.W. Wehe , Security

Management . American Society for Industrial Security, Arlington, VA,

June 1987.

56. "Choosing the Best Security Window," Ryne R. Johnson, Corrections

Today . American Correctional Association, College Park, MD, April 1984.

57. "Steel Windows -- Specifications," Steel Window Institute, Cleveland,

Ohio, May 1983.

58. "Windows and Glazing: A Summary of 10 Years of Controversy," Dennis A.

Kimme, Washington Jail Architectural Symposium and Materials Fair,

October 1, 1980.

59. "Security Glazing Testing Program and Recommendations," prepared by

Kitchell/CEM for the State of California Department of Corrections,

July 10, 1985.

60. Various reports on the testing of security glazing, Wiss, Janney,

Elstner Associates, Northbrook, Illinois.

61. "Transparent Materials and Assemblies for Use in Forced Entry or

Containment Barriers," HPW-TP-0100 . 00 , Revision B, H.P. White

Laboratory, Street, Maryland, December 10, 1983.

63
62 . "Development of a Test Method to Evaluate the Penetration Resistance of

High-Security Glazing Subjected to Mechanical Impact and Heat," L.I.

Knab , S. Fischler, J.R. Clifton, N.E. Waters, NIJ Report 300-85,

National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, November 1986.

63. "Design Criteria for Correctional Facility Access Control Systems,"

Carl Dean, Corrections Today . American Correctional Association,

College Park, MD, April 1984.

64. "Entry -Control Systems Handbook," SAND77-1033 Revised, Sandia National

Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, September 1980.

65. "Electronic Access -- The Key to Better Security," Bill Lynch,

Corrections Today . American Correctional Association, College Park, MD,

July 1987.

66. "High Security Locking Devices -- A State-of- the-Art Report," John S.

Stroik, NBSIR 81-2233, NBS , Gaithersburg, MD, January 1982.

67. "Lighting for Corrections," Eddis M. Goodale , Lighting Design + Application . Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, New

York, NY, September 1987.

68. "Lighting Leads to Security," Robert W. Chism, Corrections Today . American Correctional Association, College Park, MD, April 1985.

69. "Lighting -- First Step to Safety," Joseph R. Claffy, Corrections

Today „ American Correctional Association, College Park, MD, April 1986.

70. "Security Lighting -- Testing for Better Design and Construction,"

Horton Conrad, Jr., Corrections Today . American Correctional

Association, College Park, MD , April 1986.

71. "A Study of Penal Institution Fires," NFPA No. FR78-1, National Fire

Protection Association, Boston, MA, 1977.

72. "Fire Safety in Correctional Facilities," Annotated Edition, prepared

by NFPA for NIC, 1981.

73. "The Development of a Fire Evaluation System for Detention and

Correctional Occupancies," H.E. Nelson, A.J. Shibe , NBSIR 84-2976, NBS,

Gaithersburg, MD , December, 1984.

74. "Effect of Ventilation on the Rates of Heat, Smoke, and Carbon Monoxide

Production in a Typical Jail Cell Fire," B.T. Lee, NBSIR 82-2469, NBS,

Gaithersburg, MD, March, 1982.

75. "A Preliminary Analysis of Padded Cells Fire Safety," R.B. Williamson,

F.L. Fisher, Prepared for State of California Bureau of Corrections,

UCB Engineering 4808, University of California, Berkeley, CA, March,

1980.

64
76 . "Fire Test for Wall and Ceiling Materials and Assemblies for Use in

Padded Safety Cells," R.B. Williamson, F.L. Fisher, University of

California, Berkeley, January, 1982.

77. "Fire Hazard Evaluation of Shipboard Hull Insulation and Documentation

of a Quarter- Scale Room Fire Test Protocol," B.T. Lee, NBSIR 83-2642,

NBS , Gaithersburg, MD , August, 1983.

78. "Combustion of Mattresses Exposed to Flaming Ignition Sources; Part I.

Full-Scale Tests and Hazard Analysis," V. Babrauskas, NBSIR 77-1290,

NBS, Gaithersburg, MD, September, 1977.

79. "Combustion of Mattresses Exposed to Flaming Ignition Sources; Part II.

Bench-Scale Tests and Recommended Standard Test," V. Babrauskas, NBSIR

80-2186, NBS, Gaithersburg, MD, February, 1981.

80. "Flammability Test Procedure for Mattresses for Use in High Risk

Occupancies," Technical Information Bulletin No. 121, State of

California, Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Home Furnishings,

North Highland, California, April 1980.

81. "Technology Transfer," Robert H. Lawson, The American Justice

Institute, A Report Prepared for the California Department of

Corrections, January 1984.

82. "Building Construction Cost Data 1985," R.S. Means Company, Inc.,

Kingston, MA 02364.

83. "Survey: 1986 Prison Construction Tops $3 Billion," Corrections

Compendium . Contact Center, Inc., Lincoln, NE, May 1986.

84. "Life Cycle Costs as a Consideration for State Corrections

Construction," J. Michael Pitts, Ed Killingsworth , Patrick R. Anderson,

Advancing Building Technology, Proceedings of the 10th Triennial

Congress of the International Council for Building Research, Studies

and Documentation, Volume 9, September 22-26, 1986, p.3981.

85. "Performance Criteria for Solar Heating and Cooling Systems in

Commercial Buildings," Center for Building Technology, NBS Technical

Note 1187, NBS, Gaithersburg, MD, April 1984.

86. "Post-Occupancy Evaluation Program," California Department of

Corrections/Kitchell CEM, May 4, 1987.

65
. ' . - .
Appendix A - An Overview of Standards Terminology and the Standards

Development Process

Overview of Standards

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) defines a standard as

"a rule for an orderly approach to a specific activity, formulated and

applied for the benefit and with the cooperation of all concerned [1]." In

terms of building design and construction, a standard may be a specific set

of requirements or instructions for the testing, design, manufacture,

installation, and use of a building material, component or system [2]. A

standard exists when an agreement has been obtained on its content. The

level of agreement may range from a consensus of employees of an

organization (company standard) to a full consensus developed by

representatives of all sectors that have an interest in the use of the

standard (consensus standard) ; see figure A.

Types of Standards . ASTM develops six different types of full consensus

standards which are defined in the following paragraphs [1]. Other

standards developing organizations such as the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) , Building Hardware Manufacturers Association

(BHMA) , National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) , etc. produce similar

types of standards which may have different names and definitions.

"A standard test method is a definitive procedure for the identification,

measurement, and evaluation of one or more qualities, characteristics, or

properties of a material, product, system, or service that produces a test

result.” An example of this type of standard is ASTM E119, Methods of Fire

Tests of Building Construction and Materials, which is used to determine the

duration that various types of assemblies (floors, walls, etc.) will contain

a fire.

”A standard specification is a precise statement of a set of requirements to

be satisfied by a material, product, system, or service that also indicates

the procedures for determining whether each of the requirements is

satisfied." An example of a standard specification is ASTM A629,

Specification for Tool-Resisting Steel Flat and Shapes for Security

Applications. It contains requirements for performance characteristics and

simulated service tests for determining such characteristics for homogeneous

steel bars and shapes.

"A standard practice is a definitive procedure for performing one or more

specific operations or functions that does not produce a test result." A

good example of this type of standard is ASTM E917, Standard Practice for

Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems. This practice

describes step-by-step procedures for using the life-cycle cost method.

" Standard terminology documents contain definitions and descriptions of

terms, or explanation of symbols, abbreviations, and acronyms." ASTM E631,

Terminology Used in Building Construction, is such a standard.

67
CONSENSUS

STANDARD

CHAIRMAN/SEC

AND/OR PUBLISHER

/

ASSOCIATIONS

PROFESSIONALS

ACADEMICIANS

CONSUMER PUBLIC

GOVERNMENT

FEO-STATE-LOCAl

ALL NEGATIVE VOTES MUST BE SUBSTANTIATED & RESOLVED

Figure A. Consensus Standards Development Process

68
"A standard guide offers a series of options or instructions, but does not

recommend a specific course of action. Where a standard practice prescribes

a general usage principle, a guide only suggests an approach." A recently

developed standard guide is ASTM F1029 , Guide for the Selection of Physical

Security Measures for a Facility. It contains information to aid in the

selection of effective security measures to deter or detect an attack on a facility. These measures depend upon the threat level and the asset (risk)

level of the facility.

"A standard classification is a systematic arrangement or division of

materials, products, systems, or services into groups based on similar

characteristics such as origin, composition, properties, or use." An

example of this standard type is ASTM F793 which contains a classification

of wallcoverings based on durability.

Performance vs. Prescriptive Standards . A prescriptive standard is quite

specific in nature giving details of usage or design procedures for a building material, component or system. An example of a prescriptive

requirement would be that timber wall framing shall be 2 x 4 studs on 16-

inch centers. A performance standard prescribes objectives, conditions and

criteria to be accomplished and allows broad leeway for the designer to

achieve results. The performance statement for the above condition would be

that the wall system shall be designed to specified loading and deformation

criteria allowing the innovative designer freedom to select the materials

and other specific construction details.

Standards Development Process

Organizations Involved . In 1983 approximately 420 nongovernment

organizations maintained an estimated 32,000 standards. These constitute

approximately 40 percent of the total inventory of U.S. standards, which

exceeds 80,000. There are about 49,000 standards developed by Federal

agencies. More than 38,000 of these have been prepared by the Department of

Defense (DoD) ; 6,000 are Federal standards and specifications developed for

Federal procurement under the auspices of the General Services

Administration (GSA) . Additional standards have been prepared by U.S.

Government departments and independent agencies. Some state purchasing

departments have developed significant numbers of standards. These are not

included among the total quantity of standards because they are not applied

nation-wide [3].

Twenty years ago there were 39,500 government standards and less than 14,000

nongovernment standards. About 2,000 (17 percent) of the nongovernment

standards were designated American National Standards (ANS) . Today, more

than 8,500 standards, 25 percent of the nongovernment standards, have been

processed through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and

designated ANS.

At any time during the past 20 to 30 years some 400 private sector

organizations have been developing standards. Approximately 260 (65

percent) have ongoing standardization programs. The remainder have prepared

69
a few standards, occasionally update them, but are not actively or routinely

engaged in standards development.

The 26,000 standards issued by the 20 organizations listed in Table A are,

for the most part, distinct with respect to subject matter and content.

Only a relatively small portion are redundant or overlap other standards.

In contrast, a greater fraction of the remaining 6,000 nongovernment

standards show evidence of redundancy: This is most apparent in standards

used in the building and construction sector.

Legal Aspects . In addition to its technical credibility, a standard must

rest on sound legal principles if it is going to stand the tests of time and

use. In the United States, there arje four principles which impact standards

development: due process, restraint of trade, authority and responsibility,

and liability. Among other important points, due process provides everyone

on a standards committee with a voice in the development of a standard,

including an opportunity for anyone to appeal if they are dissatisfied. In

order for standards to avoid restraint of trade violations, measures must be

taken to prevent them from unreasonably restricting competition by stifling

innovation or by excluding potential competitors from established markets.

The third principle, authority and responsibility, requires that

organizations have authorization in their charters for developing standards,

have written procedures for developing, promulgating and maintaining

standards, etc. The fourth legal principle, liability, is especially of

interest to individuals working on standards development committees. In the

case of ASTM, which is a nonprofit corporation chartered in Pennsylvania,

members of a nonprofit corporation are not personally liable for debts,

liabilities, or obligations of the corporation.

Benefits of Standardization

In addition to improving safety and safeguarding health, standards serve to

greatly simplify commerce in a highly industrialized society and provide a common language that promotes the flow of goods between buyer and seller.

Thousands of standards are available for referencing in building codes,

construction specifications, purchase orders, etc. Other commercial

benefits of standards include [1]:

o Greater user confidence in commodities purchased,

o Better understanding of how to use commodities,

o Improved organizational integration, especially between sites,

o Better quality control.

o Lower inventories for both producer and user through elimination

of unnecessary grades

.

o Earlier delivery because of the ability to stock standard items,

o Better performance at lower prices through reduced need for

negotiations and more efficient inspection and testing.

70
TABLE A. 20 MAJOR NONGOVERNMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPERS

Number of

Standards

Aerospace Industries Association 2 f 800

American Association of Blood Banks 280

American Association of Cereal Chemists 350

American National Standards Institute 1,330

American Oil Chemists Association 330

American Petroleum Institute 350

American Railway Engineers Association 400

American Society for Testing and Materials 7,200

American Society of Mechanical Engineers 550

Association of American Railways 1,350

Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1,500

Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association 630

Electronic Industries Association 480

Factory Mutual 600

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 500

National Fire Protection Association 260

Society of Automotive Engineers 4,200

Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry 270

Underwriters Laboratories 465

U.S. Pharmacopeia 2,900

^Published and copyrighted by ANSI.

71
References

1. "Standards Make the Pieces Fit," ASTM, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia,

PA 19103.

2. "Standards -- Tools for Excellence," Robert D. Dikkers , Corrections

Today . American Correctional Association, April 1987.

3. "Standards Activities of Organizations in the United States," Robert B.

Toth, Editor, NBS Special Publication 681, August 1984, National Bureau

of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

/

72
Appendix B -- Brief Descriptions of Selected Standards for Materials,

Equipment, and Systems

ACRONYMS

AC I ANSI

ASHRAE

ASTM

BHMA

CEGS

CFR

CPSC

EIA

FCGS

HPW

ICBO

IES

LESL

NAAMM

NBS

NEMA

NFPA

NIJ

NILECJ

NWWDA

SD

SDI

SWI

UBC

UL

American Concrete Institute

American National Standards Institute, Inc.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating & AirConditioning Engineers, Inc.

American Society for Testing and Materials

Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association

Corps of Engineers Guide Specification

Code of Federal Regulations; or Center for Fire

Research, NBS

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Electronic Industries Association

Federal Construction Guide Specification

H.P. White Laboratory, Inc.

International Conference of Building Officials

Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory, NBS

National Association of Architectural Metal

Manufac ture r s National Bureau of Standards

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

National Fire Protection Association

National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Law Enforcement & Criminal

Justice, now NIJ

National Wood Window and Door Association

U.S. Department of State

Steel Door Institute

Steel Window Institute

Uniform Building Code (of ICBO)

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

GENERAL

ASTM F967-86 Practice for Security Engineering Symbols

Scone : Practice for using symbols to depict security systems and equipment

requirements for architectural or engineering drawings. Nine pages of

symbols. Symbol categories are: Annotation, Access Control, Annunciation:

Console/Panel, Annunciation: Devices, Barriers and Vehicle Controls,

Communications, Electrical, Lighting, Miscellaneous, Sensors, Surveillance,

Switches, and Door and Locking Hardware.

73
ASTM F1029-86 Guide for the Selection of Physical Security Measures for a Facility

Scope : Aid in the selection of effective security measures to deter or

detect an attack on a protected facility. Four threat levels based on skill

of attacker and four asset (risk) levels -- residential, commercial,

industrial, and very high risk facilities are defined. A threat/physical

security matrix identifies, protective measures and instrumentation

applicable for protecting the above facilities from the various threat

levels

.

ASTM F832-83 Classification for Security Seals

Scope : Covers categories of commercially available seals. Classification is

based on their configuration and the material from which they are made.

Types of seals are: Wire, Padlock, Strap, Cable, Bolt, Cinch, Twist, Scored,

and Label.

SITEWORK

FENCING AND GATES:

ELECTRIC FENCE CONTROLLERS:

UL 69-85 Electric Fence Controllers

Scope : Covers electric fence controllers to be employed on lighting or

power circuits in accordance with the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70.

Covers both battery operated and lighting or power circuits of 125 volts or

less, or combination controllers. 10 performance tests specified.

CHAIN LINK FENCE:

ASTM A116-81 Spec, for Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) Steel Woven Wire Fence

Fabric

Scope : Covers fabric suitable for farm field, railroad, and highway, rightof-way and similar fencing, having a series of horizontal (line) wires with

vertical (stay) wires woven or wrapped around the line wires, forming

rectangular openings. Mostly design. One test is weight of zinc coating.

ASTM A392-84 Spec, for Zinc-Coated Steel Chain-Link Fence Fabric

Scope : Covers fence fabric, zinc-coated before or after weaving. Tests for

weight of coating in accordance with A90 and shall meet minimum breaking

strengths specified in A817 when tested in accordance with A370.

74
ASTM A491-84 Spec, for Aluminum- Coated Steel Chain-Link Fence Fabric

Scope : Covers fence fabric, aluminum- coated before weaving. Test for

weight of coating as specified in A817.

ASTM A584-82 Spec, for Aluminums Coated Steel Woven Wire Fence

Fabric

Scope : Covers fence fabric suitable for such uses as railroad or highway

right-of-way and similar fencing, having a series of horizontal (line) wires

with vertical (stay) wires woven or wrapped around the line wires, forming

rectangular openings. Test for minimum weight of coating.

ASTM A70-2-84 Spec, for Steel Fence Posts and Assemblies, Hot Wrought

Scope : Covers steel fence posts and assemblies manufactured from hotwrought sections and intended for use in field and line fencing. The posts

are available in tee, channel, or U or Y-bar shapes or angle shapes. Tests

are for tensile strength, hardness, weight and zinc coating.

ASTM A783-81 Spec, for Aluminum-Zinc Alloy-Coated Steel Chain-Link Fence

Fabric

Scope : Covers fence fabric, aluminum-zinc alloy-coated before weaving.

Tests for weight of coating, and minimum breaking strengths (4 diameters

with corresponding strengths from 750 - 2170 Ibf.) when tested in accordance

with A370.

ASTM A817-86 Spec, for Metallic-Coated Steel Wire for Chain-Link Fence

Fabric

Scope : Covers steel wire (3 types of coatings) used for the manufacture of

chain- link fence fabric. Tests for weight of coating and adherence of

coating

.

ASTM F552-83 Definitions of Terms Relating to Chain-Link Fencing

Scope : About 50 items defined and 16 illustrations provided.

ASTM F567-84 Practice for Installation of Chain-Link Fence

Scope : Covers installation procedure including site preparation, post

location and setting, terminal post bracing, top rail and tension wire,

chain- link fabric, barbed wire, gates, etc.

75
ASTM F573-84 Spec, for Residential Zinc-Coated Steel Chain-Link Fence

Scope : Covers 11 1/2-gage (2.87 mm) steel chain-link fence fabric, zinccoated after weaving. Specifies weave, size of mesh (2 1/8 in.), breaking

strength (750 lbf )

,

size of wire, height of fabric (up to 60 inches).

ASTM F626-84 Spec, for Fence Fittings

Scope : Covers materials, coating requirements, and inspection of fence

accessories: post-line caps, rail/brace ends, sleeves-top rail, tie wires

and clips, tension and brace bands, tension bars, truss rods, and barb arms.

ASTM F668-84 Spec, for Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) -Coated Steel

Chain-Link Fence Fabric

Scope : Covers fabric coated before weaving. Nominal heights 3, 3.5, 4, 5,

6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 feet. Largely design spec, in which class of PVC

coating, the color, the size of mesh, size of wire, the height and length of

fabric in each roll of fabric must be identified.

ASTM F669-85 Spec, for Strength Requirements of Metal Posts and Rails for

Industrial Chain- Link Fence

Scope : Covers strength requirements of metal posts and rails for heavy and

light industrial chain- link fence up to 12 feet high with a spacing of posts

not exceeding 10 ft. Posts and rails may have any cross-sectional shape

that will meet this spec's requirements. Heavy industrial fence - most

rigid and mechanically durable. Light industrial fence - 80% of load

bearing capability of heavy industrial fence. Strength and stiffness

criteria specified. Satisfactory designs are classified by product/special

requirement as follows: A120, steel pipe, aluminum pipe, steel pipe, roll

formed steel shapes, hot-rolled shapes, and alternative designs.

ASTM F761-85 Spec, for Strength Requirements of Steel Posts and Rails for

Residential Chain-Link Fence

Scope : Same as F669 except strength and stiffness are somewhat less.

ASTM F900-84 Spec, for Industrial and Commercial Swing Gates

Scope : Covers detailed requirements for chain-link fence gates, gate posts

and accessories for both single and double swing-type gates for industrial

and commercial application.

76
FCGS 02444-85 Fence, Chain-Link

Scope : Design spec, that relies heavily on RR-F-191 specs. Provides

general guidance for installation. No performance specs, or test methods.

RR-F-191-81 Fencing, Wire and Post, Metal (Chain-link Fencing Fabric)

Scope : A Federal Spec, similar to ASTM standard spec F669. Cites A370-

Mechanical Testing of Steel Products.

RR-F-221/GEN - 73 Fencing, Wire, Fence Posts and Accessories (Barbed Wire,

Woven Wire, Netting)

Scope : A Fed. Spec, covering general requirements for barbed wire, woven

wire, netting, posts and accessories for the erection of farm field,

railroad right-of-way and similar fencing. Mostly a design spec. Tests are

only for chemical composition.

BARBED WIRE/TAPE:

ASTM A121-81 Spec, for Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) Steel Barbed Wire

Scope : Covers zinc-coated steel barbed wire, consisting of a strand of two

wires, in a number of sizes and constructions with three classes (weights)

of zinc coating. Orders must identify number of spools, size and

construction, class of coating, copper-bearing steel, if required.

Specifies size and permissable variations. Test methods for weight of

coating (A90) and breaking strength.

ASTM A585-81 Spec, for Aluminum-Coated Steel Barbed Wire

Scope : Covers aluminum-coated steel barbed wire, consisting of a strand of

two wires, coated before fabrication, with 4-point barbs. Two types are

specified. Test methods for weight of coating (A90) and breaking strength.

MIL-B-52775 - 81 Barbed Tape, Obstacle, General Purpose and Barbed Tape,

Fence Topping

Scope : Covers three types of stainless steel barbed tapes. References

MERADCOM drawings TA13220E8351 , Barbed Tape, Obstacle, General Purpose,

Stainless Steel (another MERADCOM drawing is referenced in California prison

design specs) . Inspection for breaks or cracks is required using at least

lOx magnification. If defects are not clearly identifiable, then E165 for

liquid penetrant inspection is required. QA section defines acceptable

quality levels (% defective)

.

77
RR-F-191/1A - 76 Fencing Wire (Barbed Wire)

Scope : Covers specific requirements for barbed wire of five types: zinccoated, aluminum coated, aluminum clad, copper clad, plastic coated. Mostly

a detailed design spec, although tests are specified for coating weight and

thickness and "breaking strength" (a non-standard tensile test) .

INTRUSION DETECTION:

UL 639-86 Intrusion-Detection Units

Scope : Covers intrusion detection equipment for burglary-protection

signaling systems to be employed in outdoor and. indoor locations to

automatically indicate the presence of an intruder by actuating electrical

control circuits. Numerous performance tests.

UL 1076-83 Proprietary Burglar Alarm Units and Systems

Scope : Applies to construction, performance and operation of equipment for

use in proprietary burglar alarm units/systems employed to protect against

burglary. Normally intended for indoor use. Numerous performance tests.

CEGS 16750 - 85 Intrusion Detection Equipment

Scope : General guidance, but not much in the way of detailed requirements,

for the installation and operation of intrusion detection equipment. Relies

heavily on voluntary standards of ANSI, ASTM, EIA, NFPA, and UL.

LESL-RPT-0305 . 00 - 74 Terms and Definitions for Intrusion Alarm Systems

Scope : Several terms related to intrusion alarm systems are defined.

NIJ-0308 - 77 Sound Sensing Units for Intrusion Alarm Systems

Scope : Establishes performance requirements and methods of test for sound

sensing devices that respond to attack noises at frequencies up to 10 kHz

and are intended for use in intrusion alarm systems to provide premise.-

protection of vaults and other secure areas. These devices cause the

initiation of a local audible alarm or the transmission of an alarm signal

to a central station. Characteristics addressed are those that affect the

reliability of the device, with emphasis on those that affect its false

alarm susceptibility and its tamper resistance.

78
NIJ -0321 - 84 Control Units for Intrusion Alarm Systems

Scope : Establishes performance requirements and test methods for intrusion

alarm control units used in protecting residential and commercial premises.

Upon actuation of an intrusion sensing device or the detection of a trouble

condition, the control unit may initiate a local audible alarm, transmit an

alarm signal to a central station. The performance characteristics

addressed are those that affect the reliability of the device with emphasis

on those that affect false alarm susceptibility and tamper resistance.

W-A-00450B - 73 Alarm System, Interior, Security, Components for

Scope : Covers security alarm system units which are designated to conform

to the standards for security equipment as set forth in National Security

directives. Highly resistive to neutralization and compromise by covert or

surreptitious attack. Types included:

1) balanced magnetic switch;

2) conductive foil

3) breakwire

4) light threshold motion detector

5) infra-red light beam detector

6) passive IR detector

7) vibration detector

8) capacitance detector

9) ultrasonic motion detector

10) microwave -radio frequency motion detector

11) pressure motion detector

12) closed-circuit television motion detector.

Performance tests include:

Neutralization and Compromise test: "various methods shall be

attempted using- tools and devices not exceeding the quantity capable of

being carried in two cases (not more than 10" x 20" x 27" per case)." Shall

withstand attempts to neutralize or compromise for not less than 12 hours.

Stability : high temperature (120 degrees F for 4 hours);

low temperature (32 degrees F for 36 hours);

humidity (over 85% relative humidity for 240 hours)

.

79
WALLS /FLOORS

GENERAL:

ASTM E72-80 Methods of Conducting Strength Tests of Panels for Building

Construction

Scope : Cover procedures for determining the structural properties of

segments of wall, floor, and roof constructions.

Wall tests: compressive load, tensile load, transverse loads,

concentrated load, impact load, racking loads

Floor tests: transverse load, concentrated load, impact loads (E695 and

E661

)

Roof tests: transverse load, concentrated load

ASTM E90-85 Method for Lab. Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission

Loss of Building Partitions

Scope : Covers measurement of walls, floor-ceiling assemblies, doors,

windows, roofs and other space dividing elements; not appropriate for

determining sound insulating performance of a partition exposed to a sound

field that contains only a small range of angles of incidence, nor is it

applicable to sounds produced by direct mechanical contact or impact. Not a field test. For field test see ASTM E 336.

ASTM E336-84 Test Method for Measurement of Airborne Sound Insulation in

Buildings

Scope : Determines noise reduction between two rooms.

ASTM E413-8Q Classification for Determination of Sound Transmission Class

Scope : Provides single- figure rating used for comparing partitions for

general building design purposes. The rating is designed to correlate with

subjective impressions of the sound insulation provided against the sounds

of speech, radio, TV, music, and similar sources of noise.

ASTM E492-77 Method of Lab. Measurement of Impact Sound Transmission

Through Floor-Ceiling Assemblies Using the Tapping Machine

Scope : Covers measurement of impact sound transmission of floor-ceiling

assemblies. A single figure classification rating "Impact Insulation Class,

IIG" is determined.

80
ASTM E695-85 Method of Measuring Relative Resistance of Wall, Floor, and

Roof Construction to Impact Loading

Scope : Covers the measurement of the relative resistance of wall, floor,

and roof construction to impact loading. Not applicable to doors. Intended

to be applied to relatively light construction, including but not limited to

wood floor and roof systems, partitions framed with wood or steel studs,

steel floor or roof decking systems, steel siding and wall panels.

HPW-TP-0400 . 01 - July 1985 Forced Entry Resistance of Structural

Materials (Opaque and Transparent) ; Test

Procedures and Acceptance Criteria

Scope : Sets forth test requirements for determining the forced entry

resistance of materials and/or devices to be used in structures. Field-type

tests are conducted with a six-member team of young, muscular males using a variety of tools (sledge, crowbar, hammer, chisels, battering ram, etc.).

Test specimen is considered to be forcibly entered when it has a hole which

allows passage of either a solid, incompressible object (12" x 12" x 8") or

a solid, incompressible, right cylinder (12" x 12"). Similar to SD-STD01 . 01 .

SD-STD-01 . 01 - May 1983 Forced Entry Resistance of Structural

Materials (Opaque and Transparent) ; Test

Procedures and Acceptance Criteria

Scope : Sets forth test requirements for determining the forced entry

resistance of materials and/or devices to be used in structures. Similar to

HPW-TP-0400. 01.

DOORS /WINDOWS

GENERAL:

ASTM E283-84 Test Method for Rate of Air Leakage Through Exterior Windows,

Curtain Walls, and Doors

Scope : Determines resistance of exterior windows, curtain wails, and doors

to air infiltration resulting from air pressure differences. Rates of air

leakage are sometimes used for comparison purposes, which may not be valid

unless the components being tested and compared are of essentially the same

size, configuration, and design. No precision and bias statement.

81
ASTM E 330-84 Test Method for Structural Performance of Exterior Windows,

Curtain Walls, and Doors by Uniform Static Air Pressure

Difference

Scope : Determines structural performance using a test chamber. Applicable

to areas of curtain walls or to windows and doors alone. When structural

performance of^ glass is to be evaluated, procedure in Annex A1 is to be

used. Intended to represent the effects of wind load on exterior building

surface elements.

ASTM E331-86 Test Method for Water Penetration of Exterior Windows,

Curtain Walls and Doors by Uniform Static Air Pressure

Difference

Scope : Determines resistance to water penetration when water is applied to

the outside face simultaneously with a static air pressure at the outdoor

face higher than the pressure at the indoor face.

ICBO - 85 Uniform Building Security Code

5360 S. Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601

Scope : Establishes minimum standards to make dwelling units resistant to

unlawful entry. Allows jurisdictions to enact the code as Chapter 41 of the

Uniform Building Code. Addresses, obstructing exits, tests and

identification entry vision, swinging doors, sliding doors and windows.

Includes UBC Standard No. 41.1 - Tests for Doors and Locking Hardware Used

for Security:

Part I - Swinging Doors and Locking Hardware on Such Doors

Deadbolt Lock Tests: static dead-bolt load test, lock impact,

cylinder core tension test, cylinder torque, bolt impact.

Door and Bolt Impact Tests: impacts to panels and flush face

doors; bolt and rail or stile impact test.

Part II - Horizontal Sliding Door Assemblies

Hand manipulation; tool manipulation; static load

UBC No. 41.2 - Tests for Window Assemblies

Hand manipulation; tool manipulation; static load and locking

device test

NBS Pub 480-22 - 77 Terms & Definitions for Door and Window Security

Scope : Glossary of definitions for those terms most frequently encountered

concerning door and window security. Terms for alarm systems are not

included.

82
NFPA 80-86 Fire Doors and Windows

Scope : Covers installation and maintenance of fire door assemblies,

windows, glass blocks, and shutters for the protection of openings to

restrict the spread of fire and smoke within buildings. Not intended to

establish the degree of protection required or to constitute the approval of

any product. Has detailed design criteria (size, ratings and methods of

operation). Appendix F discusses classification systems (hourly rating,

letter designation or a combination of both) . Fire protection ratings of

doors meeting this standard must be as determined by a testing agency in

accordance with NFPA 252, ASTM E152, UL 10B, ANSI A2 . 2 and ULC-S104.

DOORS

:

ANSI/SDI-A123. 1-82 Nomenclature for Steel Doors and Steel Door Frames

Scope : Numerous terms and symbols defined.

ANSI/SDI 100 - 85 Recommended Specs, for Standard Steel Doors and Frames

Scope : For swinging steel doors and frames, offers a number of choices in

both regular and fire door and frame construction and design. The user must

select from the specification the specific grades of doors and frames that

best apply to the project. References several ASTM, ANSI, and other SDI

standards. Those that may be useful include:

SDI 107 Hardware on Steel Doors (Reinforcement -- Application)

SDI 109 Hardware for Standard Steel Doors and Frames

SDI 119 Proposed Performance Test Procedures for Steel Doors Frames and

Frame Anchors

ANSI A151.1 Test Procedure and Acceptance Criteria for Physical Endurance

for Steel Doors and Hardware Reinforcing

ASTM E152-81 Methods of Fire Tests of Door Assemblies

Scope : Applicable to door assemblies of various materials for use to retard

the passage of fire. Determines suitability for use in locations where fire

resistance of a specified duration is required. Method uses standard fire

exposure, followed by application of a specified standard fire hose stream.

A door assembly shall be considered as meeting the requirements of

acceptable performance when it remains in the opening during the fire

endurance test and hose-stream test. No precision and bias statement.

83
ASTM F476-84 Test Methods for Security of Swinging Door Assemblies

Scope : Cover door assemblies of various materials and types of construction

for use in wall openings to deter unwanted intruders & "break-in'1 crimes.

Eleven tests: Static Bolt Load, Jamb/Wall Stiffness, Knob Impact; CylinderCore Tension; Cylinder-Body Tension; Knob Torque; Cylinder Torque; CylinderImpact; Door Impact; Hinge Impact, Hinge Pin Tensile Load; Bolt Impact.

Pass/fail tests. Based on NILECJ 0306.00. Sets out door assembly minimum

requirements (Grades 10, 20, 30, and 40). References California Building

Security Standards study on means of forcible entry. Sets out acceptance

criteria recommended in NILECJ 0306.00.

ASTM F571-79 Practice for Installation of Exit Devices in Security Areas

Scope : Information for installing exit devices used in areas of security to

achieve the greatest security possible without violating the requirements

and spirit of ANSI/NFPA 101 Code for Safety to Life from Fire in Buildings

and Structures.

References : ASTM F476

ANSI/BHMA A156.3 for Exit Devices - should be consulted

ANSI/BHMA A156.5 for Auxiliary Locks and Associated Products

ANSI/NFPA 80 for Fire Doors and Windows

ANSI/NFPA 101 Code for Safety . .

.

UL 305 Panic Hardware - should be consulted

ANSI/UL 1034 referenced after Electric strikes (see 6.2.3) but not

under applicable documents.

84
ASTM F842-83 Test Methods for Measurement of Forced Entry Resistance of

Horizontal Sliding Door Assemblies

Scope : Methods determine the ability to restrain, delay, or frustrate

forced entry. Methods apply to horizontal sliding door assemblies for use

in single and multi-family residential dwellings. Three types are

classified. Intended to establish a measure of resistance to attacks by

unskilled or opportunistic burglars. The following tests are included:

1) Disassembly - tools used for 5 minutes from exterior

2) Hand Manipulation - 2 adult males for 5-10 minutes

3) Tool Manipulation - 1 individual with tools for 5 or 10 minutes

4) Static Load on Panels and Locking Device Resistance

5) Glazing Impact - uses impactor described in CPSC 16 CFR 1201.

The appendix provides suggested measured performance for 4 Grade levels (10,

20, 30, and 40). The appendix also cites documents of the following

organizations

:

National Woodwork Manufacturers Association

Architectural Aluminum Manufacturers Association

ICBO

NILECJ

California Crime Technological Research Foundation Report

ANSI/BHMA A156.1-81 Butts and Hinges

Scope : Provides cyclical, lateral, and vertical wear tests, together with

finish tests requiring salt spray exposures. Individual hinge types are

described and identified with code numbers.

ANSI/BHMA A156.9-82 Cabinet Hardware

Scope:. Provides cyclical, operational, and strength tests, together with

finish tests requiring salt spray and humidity exposures. Hinges, pulls,

knobs, catches, drawer slides and rollers, rotating shelves, tracks and

guides for sliding panels, and shelf rests, standards and brackets are

described and identified with type numbers

.

ANSI/BHMA A156.4-86 Door Controls - Closers

Scope : Contains requirements for door closers surface mounted, concealed in

the door, overhead concealed and concealed in the floor. Also included are

pivots and thresholds. Criteria for conformance include cycle, operational,

closing force and finish tests. Optional tests which must be specified

separately are also included.

85
ANSI/BHMA A156.8-82 Door Controls - Overhead Holders

Scope : Establishes requirements for overhead door holders and includes

performance tests covering operational, cyclical, strength and finish

criteria

.

ANSI/BHMA A156. 14-85 Sliding and Folding Door Hardware

Scope : Establishes requirements for sliding and folding door hardware.

Cycle tests, static load, static friction, kinetic friction and finish tests

are included. Hardware for light to very heavy doors is covered, including

both residential and industrial applications.

ANSI/BHMA A156.3-84 Exit Devices

Scope : Provides requirements for exit devices. Included are cycle,

operational, strength and finish tests.

ANSI/BHMA A156o 16-81 Auxiliary Hardware

Scope : Establishes requirements for auxiliary hardware and includes

performance tests covering operational, cyclical, strength and finish

criteria.

NAAMM HMDF- 1 - 87 Guide Specifications for Detention Security Hollow Metal

Doors and Frames

National Association of Architectural Metal Manufacturers, 600 S. Federal

Street, Chicago, IL 60605.

Scope : Provides background on advantages of using hollow metal doors versus

bar-grille construction. Intended to be used for developing job

specifications. It must be edited to fit specific job requirements.

Includes 5 performance tests:

static load, rack test, impact load (requires security hinge to

withstand 50 impact blows of 200 lb- ft directed at the door within 6

inches of the hinge) , removable glazing stops test and bullet

resistance (cites procedure in UL 752, Bullet-Resisting Equipment); and

2 tests for surface finish (ASTM B117 salt spray for 150 hrs . and D1735

water fog test for organic coating for 200 hours)

.

Metal must meet ASTM A366 or A569.

For fabrication methods and product quality, doors must meet standards set

out in NAAMM Fire-Rated Hollow Metal Doors and Frames, 2nd Edition, 11/83;

and NAAMM Hollow Metal Manual, 2/87.

86
NFPA 252-84 Fire Tests of Door Assemblies

Scope : Equivalent to ASTM E152 and UL 10B. Cites UL as the developer of

the test methods (fire endurance and hose stream).

NWWDA I. S. 1-86 Series: Industry Standard for Wood Flush Doors

Scope : Each standard in the series describes a particular aspect of door

construction or manufacture. Test methods include moisture, bonding,

warpage, etc. However, there are no "security" -type requirements.

SDI 106 - 66 Recommended Standard Door Type Nomenclature

Scope : Identifies various door types.

SDI 107 - 78 Hardware on Steel Doors (Reinforcement-Application)

Scope : Furnishes users of standard steel doors with practical information

regarding accepted design methods of reinforcing for recommended practices

for proper field preparation and installation of builders' hardware.

Pertains to doors and frames manufactured in accordance with SDI-100.

Recommends minimum gauges for various hardware items including hinges,

locksets, bolts, closers, plates, panic devices, and pivots. No tests.

SDI 108 - 72 Selection and Usage Guide for Standard Steel Doors

Scope : Guide for selecting proper grade and model door per SDI 10‘0 spec.

UL 14B-79 Sliding Hardware for Standard Horizontally Mounted Tin-Clad

Fire Doors

Scope : Applies to hardware for horizontally sliding fire doors which have

demonstrated fire resistive properties warranting their use with two-ply or

three-ply tin-clad fire doors. Does not cover automatic releasing or

closing mechanisms. Virtually all design- type requirements.

UL 14C-79 Swinging Hardware for Standard Tin-Clad Fire Doors Mounted

Singly and in Pairs

Scope : Applies to hardware for swinging fire doors which have demonstrated

fire resistive properties warranting their use with two-ply or three-ply

tin-clad fire doors. Does not cover automatic releasing or closing

mechanisms. Virtually all design- type requirements.

87
UL 228-82 Door Closers-Holders , with or without Integral Smoke

Detectors

Scope : Applies to swinging door closers equipped with integral

electromechanical or electromagnetic holders and which may be provided with

integral smoke detectors. Also applies to electromagnetic door holder units

which are for use with a separate door closer and separate automatic fire

detector. References NFPA 80 and 72E for installation requirements.

AA-D-600 - 73 Door, Vault, Security

Scope : Covers security vault doors designed to conform to the standards for

security equipment as set forth in the "National Security Council Directive

Covering the Classification, Declassification and Safeguarding of National

Security Information. " Doors are rated for protection against unauthorized

entry for periods of time specified. References several government specs,

and one voluntary standard (UL 768 for Combination Locks). Mostly design

requirements, however there are four performance tests: door test for

sturdiness; surreptitious and forced entry test (elaborate empirical test);

entry by radiological techniques; and finish tests.

NILECJ-STD-0306 . 00 - 76 Physical Security of Door Assemblies and Components

Scope : Performance requirements and test methods for resistance of doors to

forced entry. Concerned with typical entry doorways in residences and some

small businesses (single pedestrian use, hinged swinging doors). Included

are requirements for both the total door assembly and individual components,

such as the hinges, lock, door, jamb/strike, and jamb/wall. Addresses

capability to frustrate the "opportunity" crimes. Skilled methods of entry

used to gain access are not addressed. Door assemblies and components are

classified by relative resistance to forced entry. Door assembly tests:

bolt projection strike hole, bolt pressure, jamb/wall stiffness, knob

impact, cylinder core tension, cylinder body tension, knob torque, cylinder

torque, cylinder impact, door impact, hinge impact, bolt impact.

88
NIJ Std 0318.00 - 80 Physical Security of Sliding Glass Door Units

Scope : Performance requirements and test methods for resistance to forced

entry of sliding glass door units intended for use in residences. Two

classes of units:

Class I - minimum level of physical security (designed to prevent entry

by unskilled burglars)

Class II - moderate level (designed to prevent entry by most semiskilled burglars) . Does not address rarely used methods of

gaining entry nor those only used by skilled burglars.

Class III - requires higher latch loading resistance, door panel removal

resistance (vertical only), locking device strength, fixed

panel fastening strength, meeting stile fastening strength as well as glazing impact strength.

WINDOWS

:

ASTM E163-84 Methods of Fire Tests of Window Assemblies

Scope : Applicable to window assemblies, including glass block and other

light transmitting assemblies, for use in wall openings to retard the

passage of fire. Evaluates ability of a window to remain in an opening

during a predetermined test exposure of 45-min. duration. The tests expose

a standard fire exposure followed by a specified standard fire hose stream.

ASTM E773-83 Test Method for Seal Durability of Sealed Insulating Glass

Units

Scope : Provides tests for performance of preassembled permanently sealed

insulating glass units against accelerated weathering and fogging. Only

applicable to "glass" units. Cites ASTM E 546 - Test Method for Frost Point

of Sealed Insulating Glass Units. Intended to provide a means for

evaluating the durability of the sealing system of sealed insulating glass

units

.

ASTM E774-84a Specification for Sealed Insulating Glass Units

Scope : Covers specimen size, test duration, .and performance requirements.

Provides a basis for judgment of acceptability. Associated certification

program with the Insulating Glass Certification Council (IGCC) . Three

Classes. Cites thickness tolerance of DD-G-451.

89
ASTM F588-85 Test Methods for Resistance of Window Assemblies to Forced

Entry, "Excluding Glazing"

Scope : Cover window assemblies of various materials and types of

construction for use in wall openings to deter unwanted intruders. Five

types of window assemblies are classified. Intended to establish a measure

of resistance for window assemblies subjected to attacks (other than

impacting glazing materials) by unskilled or opportunistic burglars. Annex

Al provides suggested guidelines for acceptance criteria for performance

levels. Tests include: hand manipulation, tool manipulation, static load

and locking device strength resistance.

UL 9-79 Fire Tests of Window Assemblies

Scope : Applicable to window assemblies, including glass block and other

light transmitting assemblies, for use in wall openings to retard the

passage of fire. Two tests: fire endurance and hose stream. Equivalent to

ASTM E163

.

NIJ 0316.00 - 80 Physical Security of Window Units

Scone : Performance requirements and test methods for the resistance of

forced entry of window units intended for use in residences and some small

businesses. The skilled or rarely used methods of gaining entry is not

addressed.

Four Classes - I - minimum level of physical security

II - moderate level of physical security

III - medium level of physical security

IV - relatively high level of physical security

Mode of Operations

Type A (Sliding,), Type B (Outswinging) , Type C (Inswinging), Type D

(Pivoted) , Type E (Fixed) , and Type F (Security Window: defined as units

having metal bars fastened to the exterior of the window frame for the

purpose of preventing entry.)

Includes performance tests for: resistance to loiding, locking device

stability, locking device strength, window strength, impact strength for

glazing, sash frame, and security bars.

NIJ 0319.00 - 80 Metallic Window Foil for Intrusion Alarm Systems

Scope : Provides performance requirements and methods of test for metallic

window foil used in intrusion alarm systems as a sensor to detect the

breakage of glass. Standard only applies to metallic foil for use on

glazing materials consisting solely of glass.

90
GLAZING

:

ANSI Z26.1-83 Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor

Vehicles Operating on Land Highways

Scope : Includes numerous performance test methods for impact, abrasion

resistance, chemical resistance, flexibility, flammability, penetration

resistance, ballistics, etc.

ANSI Z97.1-84 Performance Specs, and Methods of Test for Safety Glazing

Material Used in Buildings

Scope : Promotes safety and minimizes injury when broken by human contact.

Impact test designed to emulate energy levels generated by humans running

into glazing. Impact test is equivalent to 16 CFR 1201. Also includes

weathering and aging tests. [Safety Glazing Certification Council (SGCC)

administers certification program for glazing materials to meet Z97.1 and 16

CFR 1201 .

]

ASTM C158-84 Standard Methods of Flexural Testing of Glass (Determination

of Modulus of Rupture)

Scope : Methods applicable to annealed and pre-stressed glasses. Method A

is a test for modulus of rupture of flat glass, designed to include the

condition of the surface of the specimen as a factor in the measured

strength. 11 pages

ASTM C162-85a Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Glass and

Glass Products

Scope : Prepared jointly by American Ceramic Society and ASTM; 16 pages

ASTM C920-86 Specification for Elastomeric Joint Sealants

Scope : Covers properties of a cured single- or multi -component cold-applied

elastomeric joint sealant for sealing, caulking, or glazing operations on

buildings, plazas, decks, etc. Types, classes, grades and uses are defined.

Essential that the applicable type, grade, class and use be specified so

that proper sealant is provided for the intended use.

ASTM C962-86 Guide for Use of Elastomeric Joint Sealants

Scope : Covers use of sealants covered by C920.

91
ASTM C1036-85 Specification of Fiat Glass

Scope : Covers the quality requirements for cut sizes of flat, transparent,

clear glass for glazing, mirrors , and general architectural a similar uses.

Types, classes, styles, forms, qualities, and finishes must be specified.

Test methods include ream, strings and distortion; ream, strings, lines, and

waves; scratches, rubs, stones, and gaseous inclusions; transmittance - color

or tint, luminous transmittance (Practice E308) , solar transmittance (E903)

;

shading coefficient (ASHRAE Handbook for Fundamentals)

.

ASTM G1048-85 Specification for Heat-Treated Flat Glass-Kind HS , Kind FT

Coated anci Uncoated Glass

Scope; Covers requirements for flat heat strengthened and flat fully

tempered coated and uncoated glass used in general building construction.

Kinds, conditions, types, classes, styles, forms qualities and finishes must

be specified. Fabrication requirements must be specified. Also,

requirements for fittings and hardware, specific location of tong marks,

custom design or texture required, glass thickness, surface or edge

compression test, break pattern test, color or tint, luminous transmittance

and surface treatment. Tests include expansion fit, durability of coating,

adherence (C 346), alkali resistance, fallout resistance work load,

fracturing C 1036 tests, strength compression or load strength, impact (ANSI

Z.97.1 and 16 CFR 1201).

ASTM F12- Draft Oct 86 Test Method for Security Glazing Materials and

Systems

Scope : ASTM“ Committee F12 is preparing a standard to evaluate resistance of

security glazing against: ballistic impact; blunt tool impacts; sharp tool

impacts; thermal stress; chemical deterioration.

HPW TP-0300.00 - May 1984 Ballistic Resistance of Structural

Materials (Opaque and Transparent) ; Test

Procedures and Acceptance Criteria

Scope : Sets forth requirements for determining the ballistic resistance of

building materials intended for use in buildings and structures (or portions

thereof) which may be attacked by small arms fire. Three ratings are

specified: Minimum (Submachine gun and 12 gauge shotgun); Rifle; and Rifle

(Armor Piercing). Similar to SD-STD-02 . 01

.

92
UL 752-85 Bullet Resisting Equipment

Scope : Requirements cover materials, devices, and fixtures used to form

bullet-resisting barriers designed to protect against robbery or holdup.

"Bullet-resisting" signifies that protection is provided against complete

penetration, passage of fragments of projectiles, or spalling

(fragmentation) of the protective material to the degree that injury would

be caused to a person standing directly behind the bullet-resisting barrier.

Ratings: medium-small arms, high-small arms, super-small arms, and highpowered rifle. Several test methods included. 57 pages.

UL 972-85 Burglary Resisting Glazing Material

Scope : Requirements cover clear, translucent, or opaque glazing material

intended for indoor/outdoor use principally as a substitute for plate glass

windows or show case panels and intended to resist burglarious attacks of

the "hit and run" type. Four types of impact tests:

1) Multiple impact (shall withstand five 50 foot-lb. impacts of a steel

ball, 3-1/4" diameter, weighing 5 lb., dropped from 10 ft.)

2) Thermal Conditioning for Outdoor Use (shall withstand five 40 foot- lb.

impacts of a steel ball, 3-1/4" diameter, weighing 5 lb., dropped from

8 ft. onto thermally conditioned samples -- 120 degrees F

and 14 degrees F)

3) Thermal Conditioning for Indoor Use (shall withstand five 50 foot- lb.

impacts of a steel ball, 3-1/4" diameter, weighing 5 lb., dropped from

10 ft. onto thermally conditioned samples -- 95 degrees F

and 55 degrees F)

4) High-Energy Impact (shall withstand one impact of over 200 foot- lb. of

a steel ball, 3-1/4" diameter, weighing 5 lb., dropped from 40 ft.)

CPSC 16 CFR 1201 Safety Standard for Architectural Glazing Materials

Scope : Requirement for safety for any of the following: 1) storm doors or

combination doors; 2) doors; 3) bathtub doors and enclosures; 4) shower

doors and enclosures; 5) [reserved]; and 6) sliding glass doors (patio

type). Includes glazing materials used in such products. Tests: 1) Impact

(uses well-specified test equipment) ; 2) Accelerated environmental

durability. Reference ANSI Z97.1 - 1972 and 1975 as acceptable alternative.

States certification and labelling requirement generically.

NIJ 0108.01 - 85 Ballistic Resistant Protective Materials

Scope : Establishes minimum performance requirements and methods of test for

all ballistic resistant materials (armor) intended to provide protection

against gunfire, with the exception of police body armor and ballistic

helmets. Six levels of performance are classified depending on weapons and

ammunition used ranging from a 38 caliber handgun to an armor piercing

rifle

.

93
SD- STD-02 . 01 - March 1986 Ballistic Resistance of Structural Materials

(Opaque and Transparent) ; Test Procedures and

Acceptance Criteria

Scope : Sets forth requirements for determining the ballistic resistance of

building materials intended for use in buildings and structures (or portions

thereof) which may be attacked by small arms fire. Three ratings are

specified: Minimum (Submachine gun and 12 gauge shotgun); Rifle; and Rifle

(Armor Piercing). Similar to HPW-TP-0300 . 00

.

ACCESS CONTROL

GENERAL:

UL 294-87 .• Access Control System Units

Scope : Apply to construction, performance and operation of systems intended

to regulate/control (1) entry into an area or (2) access to or the use of a device (s) by electrical, electronic or mechanical means. Contains numerous

tests including destructive and nondestructive attack tests of 5 minute

duration. If alarm is activated during attack, duration is reduced to 2

minutes

.

LOCKS : .

ASTM F471-82 Definitions of Terms Relating to Combination Locks

Scope : About 50 terms used to describe various aspects of combinations

locks are defined.

ASTM F883-84 Performance Specs, for Padlocks

Scope : Contains environmental, functional, operational, security

requirements. Included are function descriptions, cycle tests, operational

tests, environmental tests, forcing tests, and surreptitious entry tests.

No effort has been made to include criteria for specially made padlocks used

by the Defense Department or others in highly sensitive locations.

Describes grades and various levels of performance to provide users with

criteria upon which to select suitable padlocks.

ANSI/BHMA A156.2-83 Bored and Preassembled Locks and Latches

Scope : Establishes requirements for bored and preassembled locks and lock

trim. Includes performance tests, operational, strength and finish tests,

and dimensional criteria. Levels of performance for bored locks are set

forth, and an appendix with a users guide is provided.

94
ANSI/BHMA A156.5-84 Auxiliary Locks and Associated Products

Scope : Contains requirements for auxiliary bored and mortise locks, rim

locks, and cylinders. Included are security tests, operational tests, finish

tests, and dimensional criteria. Refers to UL 1034 in regard to electric

strikes. Test criteria specified for three grades of locks.

ANSI/BHMA A1 56. 11-85 Cabinet Locks

Scope : Establishes requirements for cabinet locks used on doors, drawers,

and furniture. Included are cycle, operational, strength, and finish tests;

and dimensional criteria.

ANSI/BHMA A156. 12-86 Interconnected Locks and Latches

Scope : Establishes requirements for interconnected locks and includes

security tests, operational tests, cycle tests, finish tests, and

dimensional criteria.

ANSI/BHMA A156. 13-80 Mortise Locks and Latches

Scope : Establishes requirements for mortise locks and latches and includes

performance tests, security tests, operational tests, finish tests, and

dimensional criteria.

UL 305-79 Panic Hardware

Scope : Covers releasing devices actuated by a cross-bar for outward- opening

doors, designed to facilitate the egress of persons from buildings in the

event of panic or other emergency. Two performance tests: endurance tests

(100,000 cycles without failure or excess wear) & emergency operation test.

UL 437-86 Key Locks

Scope : Covers key locks categorized as follows: door locks, locking

cylinders, security container key locks, and two-key locks. Four performance

tests including endurance test, attack resistance tests, salt spray

corrosion test, and polymeric materials tests. Attack resistance test time

for door locks and locking cylinders is 10 minutes for picking and

impression; and 5 minutes for forcing, drilling, sawing, prying, pulling,

and driving using various hand tools. Effective date of many of these

requirements is September 1, 1987.

95
UL 1034-85 Burglary Resistant Electric Locking Mechanisms

Scope : Requirements apply to the construction, performance and operation of

burglary-resistant electric locking mechanisms and their related devices,

such as control unit, control switch, power supply, and the like, used to

secure and release doors, and the like by applying or removing electrical

power. About 30 performance tests including: forcing tests (pushing and

torque) and tool attack tests (5 minute duration with specified hand tools)

.

CEGS-08701 - 86 Hardware: Prison-Locking Devices

Scope : Specifies four types of deadlocks:

A. for swinging doors with or without gang- locking device;

B. for swinging doors without gang- locking device;

G. for swinging doors of cabinets;

D. for sliding doors, with or without gang- locking device.

This is a design spec. No performance tests are included.

FF-P-110 - 72 Padlock, Changeable Combination (Resistant to Opening by

Manipulation and Surreptitious Attack)

Scope : Covers both dial and push button designs. Required to resist

opening by surreptitious and manipulation techniques for specified periods

of time. No forced entry requirements. Test methods include:

a) manipulation technique;

b) surreptitious attack;

c) radiographic;

d) direct tension;

e) jar test with tension;

f) jar test without tension;

g) padlock shackle; and

h) drop test.

MXL-L-29151 - 75 Locks and Lock Sets, Exterior, Ordnance, High Security

Scope : Covers key operated, high security, dead-bolt locks and lock sets,

for the securing of sensitive ordnance materials. Uses several test methods

including: hardness (E18) , fog (B117) , picking and bypassing test, key

integrity test, operational test, impact test (lock shall be

substantially struck six times in different directions with a mallet

weighing no more than 12 ounces), operational temperature test, drop test,

wear test, and forced entry tests (specifies 10 types of tools, each not

exceeding 10 lb. and with other restrictions, to be used to defeat the lock

in less than 7 man-minutes)

.

96
MIL.-H-29181 - 78 Hasp, High Security, Shrouded, for High and Medium

Security Padlock

Scope : Covers two styles of hasps for high security padlocks. Uses two

tests including: hardness (E18) and impact (E23 - notched bar impact testing

of metallic materials)

.

MIL-P-43607 - 80 Padlock, Key Operated, . High Security, Shrouded Shackle

Scope : Covers one type of key operated, high security, shrouded shackle

padlock that employs a dead bolt locking mechanism. Uses several test

methods including: surreptitious neutralization test (can the padlock be

compromised without it appearing to be such), wear resistance, drop tests,

shackle pull-out test, low temperature shock test, forced entry tests

(specifies using, but not limited to, 6 sets of tools, not exceeding a total

of 20 lb. and with other restrictions, to be used to defeat the padlock in

less than 5 minutes of accumulated work time, excluding preparation, rest,

and safety precaution periods), heat resistance, low temperature operation,

key integrity test, fog test, key hardness, key deformation resistance,

operating key function, control key function, cylinder interchangeability.

TELEVISION SYSTEMS:

ASTM F572-83 Practice for Application of Photographic Security Cameras in

Financial Institutions

Scope : Guide for use in determining the type (continuous, demand, or

special application) of cameras that can be used adequately in financial

institutions. Contains minimum standards to be exercised in the placement

and installation of these cameras.

UL 983-83 Surveillance Camera Units

Scope : Covers surveillance cameras and accessories intended for use at

mercantile and banking premises to provide a means of recording images of

holdup attempts or other activities in the area. May take single frame,

rapid sequence or motion pictures.

97
ELECTRICAL

GENERAL:

NFPA 70 - 84 National Electrical Code (NEC)

Scope : Basic Wiring, Equipment, Special Occupancies, etc.

UL 634-85 Connectors and Switches For Use With Burglar-Alarm Systems

Scope : Covers donnectors and switches for use with burglar-alarm systems in

mercantile premises, mercantile safes and vaults, bank safes and vaults, and

residences. Intended to be used in circuits of limited energy in accordance

with NFPA 70. Switches are intended for use in protective circuits to

supervise doors, windows, hatches, vents, etc. to initiate an alarm signal

when actuated.

EMERGENCY POWER:

NFPA 110 - 85 Emergency and Standby Power System

Scope : Covers performance requirements for power systems providing an

alternative source of electrical power to loads in buildings and facilities

in the event that the normal power source fails. Includes power sources,

transfer equipment, controls, supervisory equipment, and all related

electrical and mechanical auxiliary and accessory equipment needed to supply

electrical power to the load terminals of the transfer equipment. Also

covers installation, maintenance, operation, and testing requirements as

they pertain to performance of an emergency power supply system.

98
LIGHTING:

UL 57-80 Electric Lighting Fixtures

Scope : Covers high intensity discharge lighting fixtures for commercial,

industrial, or residential use in location in accordance with the NEC.

UL 924-85 Emergency Lighting and Power Equipment

Scope : Covers battery powered emergency lighting and power equipment for use

in ordinary indoor locations in accordance with NEC. Such equipment is

intended to supply automatically illumination or power or both to critical

areas and equipment in the event of failure of the normal supply or in the

event of accident to elements of a system intended to supply, distribute,

and control power and illumination essential to safety of human life.

UL 1570-86 Fluorescent Lighting Fixtures

Scope : Covers general use fluorescent electric lighting fixtures for

commercial, industrial, or residential use in ordinary locations in

accordance with NFPA 70.

UL 1571-86 Incandescent Lighting Fixtures

Scope : Covers general use incandescent electric lighting fixtures for

commercial, industrial, or residential use in ordinary locations in

accordance with NFPA 70.

FIRE SAFETY

CPSC FF4-72 - 73 Standard for

Mattresses Pads

the Flammability of Mattresses and

Scope : Prescribes requirements for testing of prototype designs of

mattresses and mattress pads before the sale of such items subject to the

standard. Specifies a test to determine the ignition resistance when

exposed to a lighted cigarette. Does not include how a mattress reacts when

exposed to open flame ignition.

NFPA 13 - 85 Installation of Sprinkler Systems

Scope : Contains minimum requirements for design and installation to provide

a degree of protection for life and property from fire.

99
NFPA 101 - 85 Code for Safety of Life from Fire in Buildings and Structures

Scope : Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 31

Appendix E

New Detention and Correctional Occupancies

Existing Detention and Correctional Occupancies

Operating Features

Fire Safety Evaluation System for Detention and

Correctional Occupancies

ASTM E84"84a Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building

Materials

Scope : Comparative surface burning behavior of building materials tested in

the ceiling position. Provide comparative measures of surface flame spread

and smoke density with that of select grade red oak and reinforced cement

board surfaces. May not be appropriate for some cellular plastic materials.

ASTM E108-83 Methods of Fire Tests of Roof Coverings

Scone : Measure relative fire characteristics of roof coverings including:

intermittent flame exposure test; spread of flame test; burning brand test;

flying brand test; rain test. Three test classes. Provides a basis for

comparison for simulated fire exposure to the outside only .

ASTM E119-83 Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials

Scope : Applicable to assemblies of masonry units and to composite

assemblies of structural materials for buildings, including bearing and

other walls and partitions, columns, girders, beams, slabs, and composite

slab and beam assemblies for floors and roofs. Intended to evaluate the

duration for which these types of assemblies will contain a fire.

"Protective Membrane Performance" reported. Sometimes the hose stream test

is used following the fire endurance test.

ASTM E136-82 Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube

Furnace at 750°C

Scope : Determination of combustion characteristics of building materials.

It is not intended to apply to laminated or coated materials. Assists in

indicating those materials which do not act to aid combustion or add

appreciable heat to an ambient fire.

100
ASTM E162-83 Test Method for Surface Flammability of Materials Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source

Scope : Used for R&D purposes. Not intended for use as a basis of ratings

for building code purposes.

ASTM E286-85 Test Method for Surface Flammability of Building Materials

Using an 8 -ft. (244 m) Tunnel Furnace

Scope : Provides comparative measurement of surface flame spread of building

materials when exposed to thermal radiation and natural draft conditions.

Includes a photoelectric measurement of the light attenuation produced by

the smoke during burning. Not primarily intended as a basis for regulatory

purposes. Intended for use in product development and manufacturing control

of building materials.

NFPA 72A- 85 Installation, Maintenance and Use of Local Protective

Signaling Systems for Guard's Tour, Fire Alarm and

Supervisory Service

Scope : Sets the requirements for a system where the only alarm indication is

automatic activation of the evacuation signal. The alarm does not go

outside the building. Such a limited system would have limited use in

prisons and jails. However, the standard also provides specifications for

components of more sophisticated detection and alarm systems. A major

problem in following this standard, without modification, is that the

required pull boxes would be an attractive nuisance unless located only in

area not accessible to prisoners such as the guard office.

NFPA 72B- 86 Installation, Maintenance and Use of Auxiliary Protective

Signaling Systems

Scope : Defines the requirements to connect a 72A system to simultaneously

trip a municipal alarm system connected to the fire department when the fire

department uses a system covered by NFPA 1221, Standard for Public Fire

Service Communications. This is no longer the most common type of municipal

fire alarm system.

NFPA 72C- 86 Installation, Maintenance and Use of Remote Station

Protective Signaling Systems

Scope : Defines the requirements for the connection of a 72A system to a fire department system where there will be someone on duty to take

appropriate action, e.g., to send fire fighters and equipment.

101
NFPA 72D- 86 Installation, Maintenance and Use of Proprietary Protective

Signalling Systems

Scope : Covers those systems where the facility maintains a central

supervising station to coordinate security and/or fire alarm signaling

functions. The entire system is under the control of the user, hence the

use of the word "proprietary". While the central supervising station may be

responsible for more than just fire, this standard covers only fire related

information. However, fire related information would include such items as

the arrival of guards at reporting stations.

The central supervising station must be staffed at all times. The staff

will determine the response to be taken. Actions to be taken include

retransmission of indication of the fire to the local fire department (or

other location acceptable to the authority have jurisdiction) . The system

is usually designed so that one central supervising station can cover many

buildings or floors.

NFPA 72E- 84 Automatic Fire Detectors

Scope : Assists in the proper application of automatic fire detectors. It

is concerned with such items as location of the detectors and choice of an

appropriate type of detector. In other words, it is concerned with how the

detector operates as part of a protective signalling system. It supplements

UL268, UL 268A, and UL 521 which set the performance requirements for the

detectors themselves. The guidelines in this standard generally apply to

prisons and jails but need to be modified to account for the unique

characteristics of the occupancy, e.g. detectors may need to be placed

differently to minimize vandalism. Since the guidelines are based on the

known characteristics and sensitivities of the detectors and the physical

and chemical characteristics of the fire, modifications should be made only

with the assistance of technical experts.

NFPA 72F- 85 Installation, Maintenance and Use of Emergency Voice/Alarm

Communication Systems

Scope : Covers the installation, power supply and power backups, and some of

the required design features for Voice/Alarm Signaling Service and Two-Way

Telephone Communication Service. This is used when the fire emergency plan

involves phased evacuation, relocation within the building, etc., where you

need to communicate with the people who do not evacuate.

NFPA 72G- 85 Guide for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of

Notification Appliances for Protective Signalling Systems

Scope : Covers the performance, location, mounting, testing and maintenance

recommended for protective signaling systems.

102
NFPA 72H- 84 Guide for Testing Procedures for Local, Auxiliary, Remote,

Station and Proprietary Signalling Systems

Scope : Establishes procedures for acceptance and periodic testing of

installed protective signaling systems.

UL 268-84 Smoke Detectors for Fire Protective Signaling Systems

Scone : Defines the performance characteristics of the smoke detectors. If

the detector contains an auditory alarm, this standard defines the minimum

sound characteristics of the alarm.

UL 268A-83 Smoke Detectors for Duct Application

Scone : Defines the performance characteristics of smoke detectors installed

in ducts. Given the potential vandalism problem with reachable detectors,

the use of smoke detectors in the exhaust or ventilation systems is

promising. The design challenge is to locate the detectors so that they

cannot be reached by the prisoners but are satisfactorily accessible for

installation, maintenance, and testing.

UL 464-86 Audible Signal Appliances

Scone : Covers electrically and electronically operated bells, buzzers,

horns, and similar audible signal appliances, rated 300 volts or less, for

general or fire-protective signaling service and intended for both indoors

and outdoors in accordance with NFPA 70, 71, 72A, 72C, 72D, 72G, and 74.

UL 497B-87 Protectors for Data Communication and Fire Alarm Circuits

Scone : Protectors consist of single and multiple pair air gap arresters,

gas tube arresters, or solid state arresters, with or without fuses or other

voltage limiting devices. Intended to protect against lightning. Thirteen

performance tests included.

UL 521-86 Heat Detectors for Fire Protective Signaling Systems

Scope : Covers heat detectors for fire protective signaling systems to be

installed in ordinary indoor and outdoor locations in accordance with NFPA

72E. Smoke detectors are more sensitive than heat detectors and, therefore,

are usually preferred. However, there are situations where smoke detectors

will give too many false alarms and a heat detector is a valuable

alternative safety device, e.g., in kitchens and furnace rooms.

103
UL 864-86 Control Units for Fire Protective Signaling Systems

Scope : Covers electrical control units and accessories for fire protective

signaling systems intended to be employed in ordinary indoor locations in

accordance with the following NFPA standards (12, 12A, 12B, 70, 71, 72A,

72B, 72C, and 72D) . Numerous performance tests specified.

UL 1480-87 Speakers for Fire-Protective Signaling Systems

Scope : Covers electrically and electronically operated speakers that

provide speech communication and distinctive sounds in conjunction with

fire-protective signaling systems for indoor or outdoor locations or both,

in accordance with NFPA 70, 71, 72A-72D, and 74. Several tests included.

ECONOMICS

ASTM E833-84 Definitions of Terms Relating to Building Economics

Scope : Contains definitions relating to the economic evaluation of building

construction as used in other standards under the jurisdiction of ASTM

Committee E6 on Performance of Building Constructions.

ASTM E917-83 Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and

Building Systems

Scope : Establishes a procedure for evaluating the life-cycle costs (LCC) of

buildings and building systems. Procedures for use of the LCC method are

described step-by-step. The LCC method results in an economic evaluation

that encompasses the net effect, over time, of designing, purchasing,

leasing, constructing/ installing, maintaining, operating, repairing,

replacing, and disposing of buildings or building systems.

ASTM E964-83 Practice for Measuring Benefit- to-Cost and Savings-toInvestment Ratios for Buildings and Building Systems

Scope : Provides a recommended procedure for calculating and interpreting

the benefit- to-cost ratio (BCR) and saving- to- investment ratio (SIR) of

building designs and systems. The BCR and SIR are numerical ratios that

indicate the economic value of a project by the size of the ratio.

ASTM E1057-85 Practice for Measuring Internal Rates of Return for

Investments in Buildings and Building Systems

Scope : Establishes a procedure for calculating and interpreting internal

rate-of -return' s (IRR) for building designs and systems. The IRR provides

the compound rate of interest that equates the stream of dollar benefits or

savings to dollar costs over some defined study period.

104
ASTM E1074-85 Practice for Measuring Net Benefits for Investments in

Buildings and Building Systems

Scope : Provides a recommended procedure for calculating and interpreting

the net benefits (NB) method in the evaluation of building designs and

systems. The NB method, sometimes called the net present value method,

calculates the difference between discounted benefits (or savings) and

discounted costs as a measure of the cost effectiveness of a project.

ASTM E1121-86 Practice for Measuring Payback for Investments in Buildings

and Systems

Scope : Provides a recommended procedure for calculating and applying the

payback method in evaluating building designs and building systems. The

payback method accounts for all monetary values associated with an

investment up to the time at which cumulative net benefits , discounted to

present value, just pay off initial investment costs.

105
K BS-1T4A (REV. 2 -ac) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date

NftST.R 8 7 1687.

Standards for Building Materials. Eauipment and S vs terns

Used in Detention and Cor-=ctionai Facilities

5. AUTHOR(S)

Robert D. Dikkers, Belinda C. Reeder

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. see instructions

7. Con tract/ Grant No.

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS 23

8 . Type of Report & Period Covered

U.S* DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City , State. ZIP)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS

WASHINGTON, DC 20534

.10. SUPPLEMENTARY notes

[] Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200»word or less factual summary of most si gnificant information . If document includes a si gnificant

bibliography or literature survey , mention it here

Because of equipment and system performance problems which have occurred in jails

and prisons, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), U.S. Department of

Justice, initiated a study at the Center for Building Technology, National Bureau

of Standards (NBS) in September 1986. The general objective of this study is to

develop guidelines, test methods and the technical bases for standards which

would assist in the selection, application, and maintenance of building

materials, equipment and systems for use in detention and correctional

facilities.

During the first year of this study, the primary focus has been on determining

the state-of-the-art in the design and construction of detention and correctional

facilities. Specific emphasis was placed on identifying performance problems

associated with various materials, equipment and systems, as well as reviewing

available guidelines, standards, etc. which are or can be used by architects and

correctional officials in the planning and design of new correctional facilities.

Based on information presented, there are many important criteria and standards

which need to be developed for improving the selection of materials, equipment

and systems.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries ; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) Building materials; equipment; fire safety; jails; performance criteria;

prisons; standards; security systems; test methods.

13. availability 14. NO. OF

! X 1 Unlimited

PRINTED PAGES

119

PH For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

H Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402. 15. Price

[ ] Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161 $ 18.95

U SCOMM-OC S043-P80